ORDER H.N. Kapoor, J. - This petition has been filed by Misiryar Khan a Janta party candidate from 55 Kavar Assembly constituency, district Bareilly who lost against Acharya Dharmdatt Vaidya, respondent No. 1 by a margin of 5,935 votes. The polling had taken place on 10-6-1977 and the counting was held on 15-6-1977. The following was the result of the election. 1. Acharya Dharamdatt Vaidya Opposite Party No. 1 19068 2. Azam Jamil Ahamd Respondent No. 2 3491 3. Jaideo Singh, Respondent No. 3 11403 4. Misiryar Khan (Petitioner) 13133 5. Harish Kumar Gangwar Respondent No. 4 11802 Rejected ballot papers 1211 Total 60108 2. The election was challenged on several grounds such as improper rejection of votes, improper acceptance of votes at the time of counting, accepting many votes as valid votes which were cast in favour of respondent No. 1 although they were marked with a different instrument which was not the official instrument supplied and about 8,000 ballot papers being said to be such votes which were accepted as valid votes for the respondent No. 1 although they were not marked with the instrument of marking supplied officially. 3. Several allegations made about the counting were said to be vague and an application A-15 under O. VI, R. 16 of the C. P. C. was made for striking them out. Several other allegations on other grounds were also sought to be struck out. This Court had passed a detailed order on 22-9-1978 ordering that whatever defects there may be in paras. 6 to 12 which pertained to counting will be considered at the time when an application for inspection of ballot papers or recount was made. But the petitioner could not succeed on the basis of these allegations only unless he succeeded in making out a case for inspection or recount. I had ordered some better particulars to be supplied with regard to the other allegations about the corrupt practice. I had also ordered that certain allegations be confined to certain persons mentioned in the petition. 4. Another ground was that respondent No. 1, his election agent i. e. his son Bhupendra and Rameshwar Dayal did commit corrupt practice of bribery in order to induce the voters to cast votes for him. The particulars are given in para. 13 and amended para. 13-A of the petition. 5. 4. Another ground was that respondent No. 1, his election agent i. e. his son Bhupendra and Rameshwar Dayal did commit corrupt practice of bribery in order to induce the voters to cast votes for him. The particulars are given in para. 13 and amended para. 13-A of the petition. 5. It was further alleged that bribery was given to Azam Jamil Ahmad respondent No. 2 not to withdraw from the election as alleged in paragraph 14. 6. Another ground taken was that respondent No. 1, his election agents, his workers and supporters brought undue influence on the voters and interfered with and attempted to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right. The voters were also terrorised. The details were given in paragraph 15 and the amended paragraph 15-A of the petition. It was with regard to the polling station at Shishgarh where brickbats and stones were said to have been thrown to scare away the voters. 7. Another ground taken was that respondent No. 1 had threatened some electors of expulsion from caste and community. They were ordered to be confined to one Haridatt Sharma of village Dibina only. 8. It was also alleged in the petition that respondent No. 1 his election agent, other workers and supporters with his consent had appealed to the persons and electors not to vote in favour of the petitioner on the ground of religion and caste. The material particulars were given in paragraph 17 and the amended para. 17-A of the petition. The allegations are with regard to Jitendra, Sunderlal and Chhatrapal Singh of village Sindhauli to whom such an appeal was made. 9. Another allegation was that respondent No. 1 had appealed to Hindu voters not to vote for the petitioner on the ground of religion. The details were given in paragraph 18 and the amended paragraph 18-A of the petition. 10. It was also alleged that respondent No. 1 had hired or procured various vehicles for the conveyance of the electors. The details were given in para. 19 and the amended paragraph 19-A of the petition. 11. Another allegation was that the returned candidate had incurred expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act and that various expenses were not even shown in his return of expenses. The details were given in paragraph 20 and the amended paragraph 20-A of the petition. 12. 19 and the amended paragraph 19-A of the petition. 11. Another allegation was that the returned candidate had incurred expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act and that various expenses were not even shown in his return of expenses. The details were given in paragraph 20 and the amended paragraph 20-A of the petition. 12. The petition was contested by respondent No. 1 only. The other respondents did not put in appearance and the petition proceeded ex parte against them. Sri Jaideep too had filed written statement but then did not appear. The contesting respondent denied all the allegations. 13. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed. 1. Whether counting of votes did not take place in one single room and four counting tables were outside the room in which the returning officer was sitting. If so, its effect on counting. 2. Whether the counting arrangement was not proper and it was not possible for the petitioners counting agents to keep continuous and proper supervision over the counting of votes and note down the serial number of ballot papers as mentioned in paras. 6, 7 and 8 of the petition. If so, its effect. 3. Whether there were ballot papers bearing marks made otherwise than with the instrument supplied for marking and such ballot papers were counted as valid votes as mentioned in paras. 9 and 11 of the petition. If so, its effect. 4. Whether on counting table No, 5 ballot papers marked in favour of respondent No. 1 were found folded together and there were ballot papers which were bearing signatures which were not of the polling officer and there were ballot papers not relating to 55 Karwi Assembly Constituency as mentioned in para. 10 of the election petition. If so, its effect. 5. Whether respondent No. 1, his election agents, his sons Bhupendra and Rameshwar Dayal with the consent of respondent No. 1 and his election agent committed the corrupt practice of bribery to induce voters to cast vote to respondent No. 1 or to refrain voters from casting votes in favour of the petitioner as mentioned in paras. 13 and 13-A of the election petition. If so, its effect. 6. Whether the respondent No. 1 committed the corrupt practice of bribery as mentioned in para. 13 and 13-A of the election petition. If so, its effect. 6. Whether the respondent No. 1 committed the corrupt practice of bribery as mentioned in para. 14 of the petition to induce Azam Jamil Khan, respondent No. 2 for not withdrawing his nomination in the election. If so, its effect ? 7. Whether the respondent No. 1 his election agents and his other workers, supporters and agents with the consent of the opposite party No. 1 and his election agents, committed the corrupt practice of Undue influence as defined under Section 123 (2) of the Act by interfering and attempting to interfere with the free exercise of electoral right to cast vote at the election of large number of voters and terrorising them to run away from the polling booths or not to go towards the polling booths as mentioned in paras. 15 and 15-A of the petition. If so, its effect. 8. Whether the returned candidate, respondent No. 1 committed the corrupt practice of undue influence by attempting to interfere with the free exercise of electoral right of the electorals in the constituency by threatening the electors of expulsion from the caste and community if they supported or cast vote in favour of the petitioner against the respondent No. 1 as mentioned in paras. 16 and 16-A of the election petition. If so, its effect. 9. Whether the returned candidate, respondent No. 1 his election agents, and his other workers, supporters and agent with the consent of the returned candidate and his election agent committed the corrupt practice, as defined under Section 123 (3) of the Act Jay appealing to the persons and electors of the constituency to vote in favour of the respondent No. 1 and not to vote in favour of the petitioner on the ground of religion and caste for furtherance of the prospects of the election of the respondent No, 1 and for pre-judicially affecting the election of the petitioner, as mentioned in paragraphs 17 and 17-A of the election petition. If so, its effect ? 10. If so, its effect ? 10. Whether the returned candidate respondent No. 1 his election agent and his other workers, supporters and agent with the consent of the respondent No. 1 and of his election agent committed the corrupt practice as defined under Section 123 (3) of the Act by appealing to the Hindu electors to refrain from voting in favour of the petitioner for pre-judicially affecting the election of the petitioner and for furtherance of the prospects of the election of the respondent No. 1 as mentioned in paragraphs 18 and 18-A of the election petition. 11. Whether the respondent No. 1, his election agent, and his other workers, supporters and agents with the consent of the respondent No. 1 and of his election agent committed the corrupt practice as defined under Section 123 (3-A) of Act by promoting and by attempting to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between the different classes of citizens of India i. e. Hindu and Muslims on the ground of race and religion for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of the opposite party No. 1 and for pre-judicially affecting the election of the petitioner as mentioned in paragraphs 17, 17 (a), 18 and 18 (a) of the election petition. If so its effect. 12. Whether the respondent No. 1 his election agent and his other workers, supporters and agent with the consent of the respondent No. 1 and of his election agent committed the corrupt practice as defined under Section 123 (5) of the Act by hiring and procuring various kinds of vehicles and by using such vehicles and other vehicles for the free conveyance of electors to and from many polling stations of the constituency as mentioned in paragraphs 19 and 19 (a) of the election petition. If so, its effect ? 13. Whether the returned candidate respondent No. 1 and his election agent and his other supporters, workers and agents with the consent of the respondent No. 1 and of his election agent committed the corrupt practice as defined under Section 123 (6) of the Act by incurring and authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act, as mentioned in paragraphs 20 and 20 (a) of the election petition. If so, its effect ? 14. If so, its effect ? 14. Whether the election petition and the affidavit filed in support of it are not properly verified in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and with R. P. Act of 1951 and with the rules made under the Act. If so, its effect ? 15. Whether the copies filed along with the election petition were not attested true copies. If so, its effect ? 16. To what relief, if any, are the petitioner entitled ? Issues Nos. 1 to 4: 14. These issues pertain to counting and can be taken up together. The petitioner has examined P. W, 16 (Ali Ahmad) election agent of the petitioner and Abdul Hafeez (P. W. 15) counting agent on these Issues while on behalf of Sri Dharmdatt Vaidya, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent and also as Vaidya Ji), Sri R. C. Bhardwaj (R. W. 1) returning officer and Bhupendra Sharma (R. W. 11) son of the respondent, who was his election agent have been examined. Certain papers were brought by the clerk of the election office Sri Ram-saran Saxena (R. W. 4). 1 also examined Sri Kanhaiylal, (C. W. 1), the Assistant Election Officer. There are also some documents on the record on these issues which will also be considered. On issue No. 1, all that was stated was that four counting tables were outside the hall in which the counting had taken place. They were in the verandah. The returning officer stated that he could see two of those tables from his chair and the Addl. Returning Officer was also sitting in the verandah. On issue No. 2, no such evidence was led which could show that the seating arrangements were not proper and there could not be proper supervision. Admittedly, there were counting agents of all the candidates on each counting table. All the disputed ballot papers were taken to the table of the returning officer and he used to decide in the presence of the candidates or their election agents who were sitting at his table. On issue No. 4, evidence was not led. It can, therefore, be said issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not seriously pressed and that it could not be shown as to how the result of the election has been materially affected. On issue No. 4, evidence was not led. It can, therefore, be said issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not seriously pressed and that it could not be shown as to how the result of the election has been materially affected. In this connection it may be stated that although there is no definite issue on this point, Abdul Hafeez (P. W. 15) stated that he was also the polling agent at Shishgarh polling station and that he had put the seal on the ballot box which was supplied to him by Dr. Yusuf on behalf of the petitioner and that per chance this every ballot box came to be opened at his counting table in the initial counting and then he had found that the seal which he had put was missing and that there was only one seal. He stated that he made oral complaint about the same to the returning officer and then also made a written complaint, immediately when it was detected. The returning officer, however, stated that no such complaint was made to him during the course of counting and after the counting was over and the result was known as the compilation was being done, but the result had not been announced. Several complaints of all types were made and that the complaint made by Abdul Haffes was also of that type. Its certified copy is Ext. R-13/5 (the same as Ext. P-12). The returning officer had made an endorsement on that application that it was moved at 9.40 p. m. when the result was about to be declared and that it had no basis and the allegations made therein were incorrect. Abdul Hafees stated that he could read only digits and could not read letters in English and so he could not say as to what was that seal. He also stated that at that time he remembered what was the number of the polling station at which he was the polling agent and so he could know that it was that ballot paper of that polling station. He admitted that there were three polling stations at Shishgarh and at the Primary School itself, there were other booths. His evidence on this point does not appear to be at all convincing. He admitted that there were three polling stations at Shishgarh and at the Primary School itself, there were other booths. His evidence on this point does not appear to be at all convincing. In case such a serious irregularity had come to his notice he could certainly have made a written complaint at that very time. His statement is obviously wrong that he had made a written application soon after this irregularity came to his notice. Besides the endorsement of the returning officer that this application was received at 9.40 p. m., the wording of the application show that it must have been given late when the result was about to be declared because the prayer is that the result may not be declared until the enquiry was made. 15. The main issue to be considered is issue No. 3. The returning officer himself admitted that 40 or 50 ballot papers from counting table No. 11 were brought to his notice which bore the stamping mark with a seal having a circle and a plus mark and that was the seal which had been supplied during the last elections of 1971 but not for the elections of 1977. The new seal had an arrow mark. According to him, this seal was wrongly issued by the election officer and so he treated these ballot papers as valid votes. He stated that it was not a fact that all these ballot papers were in favour of the Congress candidate only. He denied the allegations that there were seven or eight thousand of ballot papers which had been stamped with such seal which was not the official seal. He stated that these 40 or 50 ballot papers were brought to his notice either in the last round or last but one round of counting and that no such complaint was made at all earlier or even subsequently during the Counting. According to him various applications which were moved on this point also on behalf of the various candidates were at the close of the counting and before the result was declared. The election agent for the respondent Bhupendra Sharma (R. W. 11) has also supported this statement of the returning officer. According to him various applications which were moved on this point also on behalf of the various candidates were at the close of the counting and before the result was declared. The election agent for the respondent Bhupendra Sharma (R. W. 11) has also supported this statement of the returning officer. On the other hand P. W. 15 Abdul Hafees stated that there were 750 or 800 such ballot papers at his table and that marks with such stamping instrument were against the symbol of cow and calf. He also stated that the Janta Party candidate and the other candidate also told him that at other tables also there were ballot papers with similar stamping marks. He however, stated that he did not make any complaint to the returning officer because he had not taken any action on his earlier complaint (Ext. P-12). He further stated that he did not have any talk about it with the election agent of Sri Misiryar Khan, that is, Ali Ahmad. Ali Ahmad (P.W. 16) stated that some such ballot papers, with the stamping mark of circle and a cross mark were detected at one table. The counting agents of the Janta Party on other tables also stated that ballot papers with similar marks were also found at their tables and there were seven or eight thousand such ballot papers. It is significant that he did not state as was alleged in the petition, that all these seven or eight thousand ballot papers were in favour of the Congress party candidate. He stated that all the disputed ballot papers were brought at the table of the returning officer and it was not a fact that the returning officer refused to show those ballot papers to him. It would mean that it was possible for him to note down the numbers. It is however, not his case that more than 40 or 50 ballot papers bearing the stamping mark with the other instrument had been brought at the table of the returning officer. He stated that he made a written complaint to the returning officer to this effect and that the agents of Harish Kumar Gang war and Jaideep Singh also made written complaints. He stated that Ex. He stated that he made a written complaint to the returning officer to this effect and that the agents of Harish Kumar Gang war and Jaideep Singh also made written complaints. He stated that Ex. P-13 was a copy of the written complaint made jointly by the counting agents of Misiryar Khan, Jamil Ahmad, Jaideep Singh and Harish Kumar Gangwar, Copies of the various applications which had been made to this effect to the returning officer are Exts. P-13, P-14, P-lS, P-16, F-17 and P-18. The petitioner had filed these copies without the orders passed by the returning officer. The respondent, therefore, has filed their complete copies with the orders of the returning officer which are Exts. R-13/3, R-13/8, R-13/10, R-13/9, R-13/6 and R-l3/4 respectively. The returning officer has stated that all these applications were made after the counting was over and the result was to be declared. Certified copies of the various telegrams sent to various authorities to this effect have also been filed. They are Exts. P-10/l to P-10/7. It is clear that all these telegrams were sent between 8.50 p.m. & 11,50 p.m. According to the returning officer the counting was over at about 9 p. m. When the result of counting was almost known, it is obvious that frantic efforts were made by the election agent of the petitioner and by the other candidates to somehow get the announcement of the result deferred by raising these various objections. These objections centred round the wrong seal. Thus Ext. P-13 which is the same as Exhibit R-13 was moved by Kewal Ram Verma of table No. 10 Dinesh Kumar Gangwar at table No. 8 Aley Hasan who has been described as counting agent of the petitioner, Jamil Ahmad, Jaideep Singh and Harish Kumar Gangwar. It is to the effect that at their tables thousands of ballot papers with forged seal marks were found. Towards the end the prayer is that the result may not be declared. Obviously it was moved at the close of the counting Ext. P-14 which is same as Ex. R-13/8 and is the copy of the joint application moved by Ali Ahmad P. W. 16 the election agent of the petitioner and by Sri Harish Kumar Gangwar who was also a candidate. Obviously it was moved at the close of the counting Ext. P-14 which is same as Ex. R-13/8 and is the copy of the joint application moved by Ali Ahmad P. W. 16 the election agent of the petitioner and by Sri Harish Kumar Gangwar who was also a candidate. It is to the effect that at table No. 1 in the fourth round some ballot papers were found which were marked with another seal and the prayer was that the declaration of the result be postponed. The returning officer has stated that it is clear from the language itself that this application too was received at the close of the counting before the result was to be declared. This application, in fact, supports the statement of returning officer that only some 40 or 50 ballot papers were found with that seal at table No. 11 in the fourth round. In case it was a fact that thousands of such ballot papers were found at various tables, Ali Ahmad would certainly have made an application to this effect specially when this application was moved at the close of the counting as stated by the returning officer, Ex. P-15 is a copy of another application moved by Mahesh Shanker or Mohni Shanker another counting agent of the petitioner at table No. 3. It is to the effect that at his table thousands of ballot papers with wrong seal marks were found. It was to the effect that the ballot papers may be recounted. The endorsement of the returning officer shows that this application was received at 9.40 p. m. and the allegations were wrong. That counting agent has not even been examined by the petitioner. It is not understood as to why he moved this application and not Ali Hasan, who was the election agent. It is obvious that Ali Hasan too had moved another application (Ext. P-14) towards the end and so he might not have considered it proper to move another application containing different allegations. Ext. P-16 which is the same as Ext. R-13/9 is a copy of an application which was moved by Azam Jamil Ahmad Khan, one of the candidates. It is to the effect that at every round and the every table there were about 30 ballot papers with round seal and with cross-mark. It was also to the effect that the result be not declared. R-13/9 is a copy of an application which was moved by Azam Jamil Ahmad Khan, one of the candidates. It is to the effect that at every round and the every table there were about 30 ballot papers with round seal and with cross-mark. It was also to the effect that the result be not declared. Obviously it was also given at the end of the counting. The endorsement of the returning officer is to the effect that the allegations were wrong that at every round there were 30 such ballot papers. Even if this application is taken to be correct, it would only account for 1,680 ballot papers in four rounds. The fifth round was on eight tables only. So another figure of 240 may be added. Even then the ballot papers with such seals would be less than two thousand while the respondent has secured about six thousand more votes than his nearest rival, that is, the petitioner. Ext. P-17 another copy of which is Ext. R-13/6 is another such application moved by Jaideep Singh, one of the candidates. It is also to the effect that about 30 such ballot papers on each table on each round were found. When the prayer is for recounting, it was also obviously made at the close of the counting. This prayer too was rejected. The last application with these allegations is Ext. P-18 another copy of which is R-13/4. It was made by Sri Shyam Nandan Singh counting agent of Sri Harish Kumar Gangwar. It is to the effect that thousands of ballot papers were marked with round seal which was not used during the 1977 elections. The prayer was not to announce the result. Obviously it was also moved at the close of the counting. The returning officer rejected it with the remark that the allegations were wrong and without basis. It is significant that Harish Kumar Gangwar himself had jointly moved the application with Ali Ahmad (Ext, P-14) also after the end of the counting, but had confined the allegations with regard to table No. 11 only. There is thus truth in the statement of the returning officer that after the counting was over and the result was almost known though not declared, a number of such applications were moved. Obviously, they were with vague allegations and no definite figures could be given. There is thus truth in the statement of the returning officer that after the counting was over and the result was almost known though not declared, a number of such applications were moved. Obviously, they were with vague allegations and no definite figures could be given. The only application which deserved some consideration is the joint application moved by Ali Ahmad and Sri Harish Kumar Gangwar (Ext. P-14) Exhibit R-13/8. I have already observed above that it corroborates the statement of the returning officer that 40 or 50 such ballot papers were found at table No. 11 in the last or last but one round. 16. I had also summoned the Asstt. Election Officer as C. W. 1 (Sri Kanhiya Lal). He stated that the returning officer had sent for him and after making the enquiries he had informed him that some seals which were issued in 1971 election were wrongly issued as they were in the same store-room. He stated that about a month back he got a thorough checking made and found that six such stamping instruments were wrongly issued which had been used in 1971 elections and not in 1977 elections. The total instruments issued for this constituency was 2,331. He also stated that three seals were issued for each polling booth. According to him, these six seals were issued by inadvertence. It may be that one of these seals might have been used at some polling station and might have been withdrawn after the mistake was detected and so only 40 or 50 ballot papers were found, but the petitioner has tried to make a capital of it. Evidence was even led to the effect that after the initial counting was over, all the counting agents were asked to leave the hall on the pretext that the same would be cleaned. Obviously the suggestion was that some irregularities were committed by the returning officer during this interval. The returning officer denied the suggestion and has stated that at no time the counting was stopped or persons were asked to go out. Obviously the suggestion was that some irregularities were committed by the returning officer during this interval. The returning officer denied the suggestion and has stated that at no time the counting was stopped or persons were asked to go out. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the statement of the returning officer that the mistake was detected at one table No. 11 only in the fourth round could not be correct as C. W. 1 has stated that he was called at about 4 p. m. or 5 p. m, learned counsel has argued that the fourth round could not have been completed before 7 and 7.30 p. m, because the counting was over at about 9 p. m. according to the returning officer. It may be that the Court-witness might not be remembering the exact time and might have stated due to lapse of memory that it was 4 or 5 p, m. but the fact remains that the statement of the returning officer is fully corroborated by the application Ext. P-14 or R-13/8 jointly made by Ali Ahmad and Harish Kumar Gangwar. 1 have therefore, arrived at the conclusion that there were only 40 or 50 such ballot papers which had been stamped with the seal which was wrongly issued by the election office and that the result of the election has not been materially affected on account of any such irregularity. Apart from it, this was an instrument supplied by the election officer for the purpose within the meaning of R. 56 (ii) (b) and as such any paper marked with this instrument cannot be rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Ram Autar Singh Bhadoria v. Ramgopal Singh ( AIR 1975 SC 2182 ) in which reference was made of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ishaq ( AIR 1955 SC 233 ). In the earlier case, no doubt, a strict view was taken and such ballot papers were ordered to be rejected which did not conform to R. 47 but in the case of Ram Autar Singh Bhadoria (Supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court were concerned with the stamping mark and gave the following direction to the High Court in para. In the earlier case, no doubt, a strict view was taken and such ballot papers were ordered to be rejected which did not conform to R. 47 but in the case of Ram Autar Singh Bhadoria (Supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court were concerned with the stamping mark and gave the following direction to the High Court in para. 30: "However, the High Court will have to determine (after taking such evidence as may be necessary) inter alia (i) whether the instrument which was used for marking the 41 votes (referred to in the election petition) was supplied to the voters by the presiding officer or any other member of his staff. If on evidence adduced, the learned Judge finds this issue in the affirmative, the further question to be considered would be (ii) whether such supply would answer the legal requirement of instrument supplied for the purpose in R. 56 (ii) (b). If both these Issues (i) and (ii) are answered in the positive then and then only he may proceed to inspection and recount of these 41 votes mentioned in the petition." These observations clearly show that if the High Court is satisfied that the stamping instrument was actually issued by the election office, it was possible for it to treat the ballot papers as valid votes. In the present case after examining the returning officer and the court witness Sri Kanhaiya Lal Asstt. Election Officer, I am satisfied that six stamping instruments which were actually used in the 1971 elections and not in 1977 elections were wrongly issued by the election office due to inadvertence and as such they conform to legal requirement given in R. 56 (ii) (b). These ballot papers were, therefore, rightly treated as valid votes. I may observe that in the present case no application has been made for inspection, scrutiny or recount of the ballot papers. In case my finding on issue No. 3 was different, I myself might have considered the desirability of issuing commission for examining the ballot papers which had been marked with the stamping instrument which was not used in 1977 election but in 1971 elections. In case my finding on issue No. 3 was different, I myself might have considered the desirability of issuing commission for examining the ballot papers which had been marked with the stamping instrument which was not used in 1977 election but in 1971 elections. In this connection 1 may refer to the decision of the Hon. the Supreme Court in the case of Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Jai Behari Lal Khachi ( AIR 1975 SC 283 ) in which it was held that even when the recount was claimed before the returning officer under R. 63, sub-rule (2) the application for recounting of votes should be supplemented by an antecedent or contemporaneous oral statement, statement of the author or any of the agents with regard to any irregularity of counting and the allegations of irregularity and illegality should not have been subsequently invented as an afterthought. If such an irregularity made in the election petition is by way of an afterthought no case for recount can be made out. In my opinion, it was not possible to claim recount on such allegations even before the returning officer. 17. In the result all the four issues are decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. Issue No. 5 : 18. This issue with regard to corrupt practice of bribery may be divided into three parts. A. an amount of Rs. 50/- is said to have been paid to Ahmad Nabi (P. W. 5) of Balahi by the respondent; B. An amount of Rs. 200/- is said to have been paid by the respondent who examined himself as R. W, 3 to Sukhlal P. W. 11 of Bansipur; and C. An amount of Rs. 200/- is said to have been paid to Rais Khan alias Anis Khan of Islampur (P. W. 10) by Bhupendra Sharma, (R. W. 11) election agent of the respondent in the presence of Rameshwar Dayal (R. W. 8). 19. It may be stated that in none of these instances, the exact date has been given by the witnesses while for the purposes of establishing corrupt practice exact date and time should have been given. Ahmad Nabi (P. W. 5) stated that the Vaidya Ji had come to his village Balhai one or two days prior to the polling along with Dwarika Pd. Ahmad Nabi (P. W. 5) stated that the Vaidya Ji had come to his village Balhai one or two days prior to the polling along with Dwarika Pd. Pradhan of his village and had asked him to see to it that he got a large number of votes from his mohalla. He gave Rs. 50/- to him and told him that he had arranged for the bullock cart of Mewaram and that he should send voters by that bullock cart. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the instance was not mentioned in the original petition. But the name of Abdul Nabi was inserted by way of giving better particulars surreptitiously without the order of this Court when there was no order for giving more instances. There appears to be some force in this argument. He stated that he was asked to send voters by bullock cart of Mewa Ram which too had been arranged by Vaidya Ji. But Mewaram was not examined. The suggestion against this witness is that he had enmity against Dwarika Pd. who was a staunch supporter of the congress party candidate being a congressman and so he had stated against Vaidya Ji. He however stated that he and the entire village had been supporting the congress candidate throughout from before. He however, avoided the reply as to whom he had supported in 1974 by stating that he did not remember. He stated that he had told the workers of the petitioner about this incident about 10 or 15 days after the election. Ali Ahmad also stated that Jokhi Ram, a person of the neighbouring village Nebipur had told him that Vaidya Ji had himself paid Rs. 50/- to Nabi Ahmad Khan. He has not given any explanation as to why his name was not mentioned in the election petition and why there was no mention of Balhai in the original para. 13 of the petition while there was a mention of the other villages Bashipur, Shergarh, Islampur, Tandon Doongarpur etc. The respondent has categorically denied these allegations and has stated that he did not visit Balhai at all. The evidence of this witness Ahmad Nabi does not inspire confidence. Besides exact date and time has not been given. 20. Sukhlal (P. W. 11) of Bansipur stated that Vaidya Ji had given him Rs. The respondent has categorically denied these allegations and has stated that he did not visit Balhai at all. The evidence of this witness Ahmad Nabi does not inspire confidence. Besides exact date and time has not been given. 20. Sukhlal (P. W. 11) of Bansipur stated that Vaidya Ji had given him Rs. 200/- one or two days before the polling and had asked him repeatedly to vote for him and get votes for others cast in his favour. He stated that Noniram of his village was with Vaidya Ji at that time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent could have examined Noniram and an adverse Inference should be drawn against the respondent on his failure to examine Noniram. This witness, however, cleverly stated that one Sumer was not the son of this Noniram but of another Noniram. He had to admit that he was once prosecuted in a case under Sections 394 and 397, I. P. C. in January, 1976 along with Ramsarup Ex. Pradhan, Sumer son of Noniram and Rampal. The defence suggestion is that Sumer is also the son of that Noniram whose sons according to this witness are Mangli and Babu. If that Noniram was, in fact the man of Sukhlal or the petitioner, there would have been no use in examining him it is the easiest thing for a person to name some of his acquaintance as the companion of Vaidya Ji and then to ask the Court to draw an adverse inference if that companion of his has not been examined. The respondent has denied having met Sukhlal or giving any money to him. It has been elicited in the cross-examination of Sukhlal that he was with Ramswarup Ex-Pradhan who was his co-accused in the case under Sections 394 and 397 I. P. C. and that in the village there were two parties, one of Chhokeylal and the other of Ramswarup. Ramswarup had been removed and Chhokeylal had been appointed Pradhan. But Chhokeylal was murdered subsequently Ramswarup too has been murdered about three months back and Moolchand, brother of Chhokeylal is being prosecuted for that murder. Ramswarup no doubt was alive at the time of election although Chhokeylal had already been murdered. The case of the respondent is that Chhokeylal was his supporter and had supported him since 1952 in all elections. This witness showed his ignorance about the same. Ramswarup no doubt was alive at the time of election although Chhokeylal had already been murdered. The case of the respondent is that Chhokeylal was his supporter and had supported him since 1952 in all elections. This witness showed his ignorance about the same. In my opinion, it has been amply illustrated that the petitioners has taken advantage of this Partibandi in the village and has been able to put up this witness to depose against the respondent. Admittedly. he was an accused in the murder case of Chhokeylal. It is significant that Ali Ahmad stated that Ramswarup had informed him about this incident. Ramswarup is none else but the Ex-Pradhan, who was against Chhokeylal and who has now been murdered. This witness stated that he did not have any talk with any person about the conversation which he had with Vaidya Ji nor he told anybody that he had paid Rs. 200/- to him. If so, it is not understood as to how Ramswarup could have informed Ali Ahmad. In the case of Laxmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 587 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court had agreed with the High Court that the evidence of such witnesses should not be relied upon who did not tell anybody about hearing the speeches in meetings and having disclosed the same for the first time in the High Court. Roshan (RW-7) who is a resident of the same village stated that Ramswarup had worked for Sri Misiryar Khan during the elections of 1977 and that Noniram, Sukhlal and Ram Bharosey were also working for the Janta Party candidate. He further stated that all of them had supported the petitioner in the 1974 elections as well. He even stated that a bomb had been hurled at the house of Vaidya Ji in 1971 and the house of Ramswarup was searched in that connection and an implement for manufacturing bomb was recovered from his house. This will show that Ram Swarup and his associates must have been very much against Vaidyaji. This Roshanlal also said that Vaidyaji or his son Bhupendra did not visit Bansipur during the election campaign of 1977. In my opinion the evidence of this witness Sukhlal does not inspire confidence. 21. This will show that Ram Swarup and his associates must have been very much against Vaidyaji. This Roshanlal also said that Vaidyaji or his son Bhupendra did not visit Bansipur during the election campaign of 1977. In my opinion the evidence of this witness Sukhlal does not inspire confidence. 21. Rais Khan alias Anis Khan (PW-10) of village Islampur stated that Bhupendra along with Rameshwar Dayal had gone to his village one or two days before the polling and that Rameshwar Dayal Block Pramukh too was sitting with him. He had asked him to vote for him and to canvass for him and paid Rs. 200/-. He stated that earlier he had told Kallu Khan Pradhan of his village that he would vote for Jamil Ahmad about eight or ten days back. He stated that he had taken family members when he had gone to cast his vote and had asked them, to vote for Jamil Ahmad. This would mean that in spite of this inducement he had not supported Vaidya JL Kallu Khan PW-8 has supported only this statement that he had told him that he would vote for Jamil Ahmad. He has not corroborated his testimony with regard to this incident. On the other hand, Bhupendra has examined himself as RW-11 and Rameshwar Dayal, Block Pramukh as RW-8 both of them have denied having visited Islampur or to have contacted this witness. His evidence has been criticised on the ground that in that original petition there is no mention of his name at all and in the amended petition by way of supplying better particulars the name of Rais Khan resident of Islampur only was mentioned in paragraph 13-A with no parentage while nothing is mentioned as to what amount he was paid nor the date or time was mentioned. It was also argued that in paragraph 20-A of the amended petition where the names of other persons to whom money was given were mentioned, the name of Rads Khan is not given. Now this witness has been examined by showing alias as Anis Khan son of Aziz. It was argued that this witness had been set up subsequently and that in the electoral roll the name of Anis Khan son of Aziz only is given. Now this witness has been examined by showing alias as Anis Khan son of Aziz. It was argued that this witness had been set up subsequently and that in the electoral roll the name of Anis Khan son of Aziz only is given. According to the learned counsel for the respondent this was the reason as to why no Raish Khan could be examined and the alias of this witness is shown as Anis Khan. It is true that this parentage was not given even in the particulars supplied under O. VI R. 17 C. P. C. He has not stated the exact date or time of occurrence as required for the purpose of the corrupt practice. In the better particulars it was also not stated as to what was the amount paid to him. Kallu Khan no doubt, stated that his alias is Anis Khan and that there is no other person of the name of Rais Khan in the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the fact that in the additional written statement it was admitted that there was one Rais Khan in that village who was a worker of the Janta Party. It was, therefore, argued that as there is no other Rais Khan according to Kallu Khan (PW-8) this witness alone would be deemed to be that person who was referred to in the additional written statement. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, argued that the reference was to a person named Rais Khan who was the worker of the Janta Party while Anis Khan (PW-10) states that he was not a worker of the Janta Party. This witness also stated that he did not tell anybody about receiving the money from Bhupendra Sharma. Ali Ahmad stated that he was informed about this instance by Mahmood Khan. In case Anis Khan (PW-10) did not tell anybody how Mahmood Khan had come to know about it. His evidence also suffers from the infirmity as mentioned in the case reported in AIR 1977 SC 587 (supra). This witness stated that he did not remember if in the elections of 1974 Misiryar Khan got any Nautanki arranged in his village and he had participated in it. He had thus clearly avoided giving straight reply because it would have exposed him to be a supporter of Misiryar Khan since 1974. This witness stated that he did not remember if in the elections of 1974 Misiryar Khan got any Nautanki arranged in his village and he had participated in it. He had thus clearly avoided giving straight reply because it would have exposed him to be a supporter of Misiryar Khan since 1974. On the other hand, Rameshwar Dayal (PW-8) has fully corroborated the statement of Bhupendra Sharma (PW-11) that they had not met Rais Khan and had never any such talk with him. No doubt, he stated he belonged to the Congress Party and was the Secretary of the District Congress Committee. He also stated that Kallu Khan Pradhan of Islampur was working for the Janta Party during the last assembly elections and had worked for the petitioner in 1974 as well. He was the Block Pramukh till 15-7-78. He stated that he did not know Anis Khan son of Aziz Khan. After considering the evidence of both the parties, I am inclined to hold that Anis Khan who has posed himself as Rais Khan is a highly interested witness being under the influence of the petitioner and Kallu Khan Pradhan and no reliance can be placed on his statement under the circumstances stated above. 22. This issue is, therefore, decided in the negative in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. Issue No. 7: 23. In support of this issue the petitioner has examined Dr. O. N. Srivastava (PW-11), H. C. Jaipalsingh (FW-2), Rafiq Ahmad injured (PW-12), Fida Hussain (PW-13) and Abdul Hafeez (PW-15) who was the polling agent of the Janta Party candidate, at that polling station. Hie allegations are that at polling station Shishgarh, primary school when there was heavy polling In favour of the Janta Party candidate Bhupendra Sharma (RW-11) the election agent of the respondent arrived there in a jeep talked to his workers and asked them to create disturbances so that the voters may run away and that subsequently a rumour was spread that there had been disturbances which would prevent other voters from arriving there. On the other hand the respondent has examined Amir Ahmad, Chairman of the Town Area Shishgarh as RW-10, and Bhupendra Sharma as RW-11. In defence the certified copies of the diaries of the two polling stations at the Primary school, Shishgarh have been exhibited as R-3/l and R-3/2. Ext. On the other hand the respondent has examined Amir Ahmad, Chairman of the Town Area Shishgarh as RW-10, and Bhupendra Sharma as RW-11. In defence the certified copies of the diaries of the two polling stations at the Primary school, Shishgarh have been exhibited as R-3/l and R-3/2. Ext. R-9 is a copy of the judgment acquitting Mukhtar Ahmad in the criminal case which was brought in respect of this incident. Bhupendra Sharma denied that he had at all gone to the polling stations at Shishgarh. He stated that Shishgarh was so close to the village of the petitioner that he and his father had been warned not to go to that area as threats had been given that they would be killed. Amir Ahmad has supported the statement of Bhupendra Sharma that he himself had asked them not to go there as he was looking after the interest of the Congress Party. He is an old Congress worker and was doing Congress work in the previous elections as well. He stated that he had gone to the Primary School and had reached there at 10.30 A.M. and had remained there throughout the day. According to him some disturbances took place at about 5 or 5.15 P.M. at the polling station on the northern side which was the exit for the voters to go out after casting their vote. All the voters had already been taken inside the boundary on the northern side because all the voters who had arrived there could cast their votes even after the expiry of time which was 4.30 P.M. After taking those voters inside the boundary, the southern gate had been closed so that no person might enter after 4.30 P.M. He stated that some persons wanted to enter the polling station from the northern gate which was the gate of exit after 4.30 P.M. and that they were prevented from doing so. At this there was a quarrel between five or six boys representing both the parties. He had rushed there and separated them. Fifteen or twenty workers of the various candidates had also reached there. He stated that at one polling booth the voting was over at about 4.30 P.M. while at the other polling booth in the same building the voting continued till 6.30 P.M. He further stated that at about 4.30 PM. He had rushed there and separated them. Fifteen or twenty workers of the various candidates had also reached there. He stated that at one polling booth the voting was over at about 4.30 P.M. while at the other polling booth in the same building the voting continued till 6.30 P.M. He further stated that at about 4.30 PM. There were 100 or 125 voters inside the compound. Obviously gates were common for the entire school building and for both the polling booths. The case of the petitioner is that after the disturbances took place at about 4 P.M. all the persons who were standing in the queues ran away and that after that only three or four votes were cast. Stones had been pelted and the Janta Party workers namely Rafiq Ahmad (PW-12) and one Mohd. Nabi had received injuries. The injuries of Rafiq Ahmad and Mohd. Nabi had been proved by Dr. O. N. Srivastava (PW-1). Rafiq Ahmad lodged the first information report (Ex. KP-8) which has been proved by H. C. Jaipalsingh. Abdul Hafeez (PW-15) has supported the statement of Rafiq Ahmad. Fida Hussain (PW-13) also corroborated their testimony. He stated that he had gone there with his family voters of his house at about 4 P.M. but they had returned without casting their vote as stones and brickbats were being pelted and disturbance took place at the polling station. This witness stated that he had already cast his vote. He stated that his vote was at ward No. 2. It has been shown from the relevant document that ward No. 2 was attached to the polling station at the Junior High School and not at the Primary School. He however, stated that originally there were only three wards and he did not know as to how many new wards are there now. He has stated that he himself had cast his vote early in the morning and then had gone with his family voters. There are however, intrinsic circumstances which show that the version of Amir Ahmad RW-10 is much more reliable. Dr. O. N. Srivastava, had to admit after seeing the judgment (Ext. R-9) that Mukhtar Ahmad, Habibul Rahman, Zulfiqar Ahmad and Md. Haroon who were accused in that case too had received injuries. There are however, intrinsic circumstances which show that the version of Amir Ahmad RW-10 is much more reliable. Dr. O. N. Srivastava, had to admit after seeing the judgment (Ext. R-9) that Mukhtar Ahmad, Habibul Rahman, Zulfiqar Ahmad and Md. Haroon who were accused in that case too had received injuries. It was, therefore, not a case as given out by the petitioners witnesses that the Congress Party workers alone had pelted stones and brickbats inflicting injuries on the Janta Party workers in order to create disturbances. In the judgment it was held that Rafiq Ahmad had stated that the marpit had taken place at the Junior High School polling station while the criminal case was with regard to the Primary school. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Rafiq Ahmad pronounced Primary School as Junior School and that might have created the impression in the mind of the Court that he was referring to Junior High School. It may be so, but the most important circumstance is that in the copy of the first information report (Ext. P-8) the time of the occurrence is mentioned at 5 P.M. No doubt, at the top the occurrence is shown to have taken place at 4 P. M. But in the body clearly 5 P. M. is stated. This supports the statement of Amir Ahmad. Polling is closed at 4-30 P. M. and only those persons who had entered the polling area could be allowed to vote after 4-30 P.M. There could then be no occasion for creating disturbances at 5 P. M. in order to scare away the voters. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 5 P. M, might have been wrongly taken down in the copy which has been filed here. There is no basis for this argument. The injuries of Rafiq Ahmad and Mohd. Nabi were examined at 7 P. M. Another important circumstance is that the diary of the presiding officer of one of the polling booths which is Ext. R-3/2 shows that the polling continued till 18.30. There is no basis for this argument. The injuries of Rafiq Ahmad and Mohd. Nabi were examined at 7 P. M. Another important circumstance is that the diary of the presiding officer of one of the polling booths which is Ext. R-3/2 shows that the polling continued till 18.30. This supports the statement of Amir Ahmad (R. W. 10) that about 100 or 125 voters were taken inside the compound of the primary School at 4.30 P. M. and they were allowed to vote till 6.30 P. M. If it was a fact that the occurrence had taken place at about 4-00 P.M. and all the voters had run away and only 3-4 votes were cast at the primary school polling station, there would have been no necessity of continuing the polling till 6.30 P. M. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on the diary of the other polling booth which is Ext. P-5 another of the same is Ext. R-3/1. The presiding officer had observed that the people of that area are quarrelsome and in future there should be more vigorous police arrangement for that area. According to this diary, the polling was completed at 4.30 P. M. It was argued that the presiding officer must have given these remarks at 4.30 P. M. and after that incident and as such that incident must have taken place earlier at 4 P. M. It is not necessary that the presiding officer must have completed the diary exactly at 4-30 P. M. He could have given his remarks after getting the ballot papers sealed. Even in this diary he had written that the polling was completed peacefully. It is thus obvious that the polling could not be disturbed till 4.30 P. M. In fact 110 votes were cast between 3.30 P.M. and 4.30 P.M. even at this booth, seeing over all result this was the period of maximum polling within one hour. This would not have been possible if there were disturbances at 4 P. M. and all the voters were prevented from casting their votes. After considering the entire evidence on this issue, I am of the opinion that this issue must be decided in the negative against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Issue No. 8 24. The solitary witness on this issue is Hardatt Sharma (P. W. 4). After considering the entire evidence on this issue, I am of the opinion that this issue must be decided in the negative against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Issue No. 8 24. The solitary witness on this issue is Hardatt Sharma (P. W. 4). He stated that Vaidya Ji had gone to his village Dewana and had threatened him that he would get him excommunicated in case he did not vote for him. He had asked him to vote for him as he was also a brahmin. He has not given the exact date and has only stated that Vaidya Ji had met him five or six days before the polling at about 6 or 7 P. M. For establishing corrupt practice it is essential that exact date and time should be given. The respondent has denied these allegations and stated that he did not come to village Dewana at all. According to him, Hardatt Sharma had litigation with his brother Vashisht Sharma (R. W. 6) for several years and he wanted the respondent to get the matter settled as Vashisht Sharma was an old Congressman. The respondent had then deputed some persons for arbitration but Hardatt Sharma did not agree to the terms and he threatened that he would see to it at the time of the election. The respondent also stated that he did not come to village Dewana at all. Vashisht Sharma (R. W. 6) who is the real brother of Hardatt Sharma admitted that he was an old Congress worker and that he was looking after the entire election campaign of Vaidya Ji in that area himself and as such Vaidya Ji had not even come to village Dewana at all. He has also corroborated the statement of the respondent that about 5-6 months prior to the last election, Haridatt Sharma had gone to the respondent to get the dispute settled and that the respondent had asked him to settle the dispute and that he had agreed and the matter was left to Jamuna Sharma, Ramchandra Sharma and Ram Bharosey Lal who had been deputed by Vaidya Ji. But Haridatt Sharma did not agree to the suggestions made by these people to settle the dispute. He stated that Haridatt Sharma supported the petitioner during these elections. Even Haridatt Sharma stated that he wanted that the Congress might not come to power in 1977. But Haridatt Sharma did not agree to the suggestions made by these people to settle the dispute. He stated that Haridatt Sharma supported the petitioner during these elections. Even Haridatt Sharma stated that he wanted that the Congress might not come to power in 1977. He stated that in the previous elections, he had supported Vaidya Ji although the petitioner had won. He stated that after the elections Sri Misiryar Khan had stopped his car and enquired from him and then he narrated the facts and that prior to this he did not know Sri Misiryar Khan but had heard his name. Later, he had to admit that the fact was that he knew Sri Misiryar Khan since the previous elections which were held in 1974 and he (Sri Misiryar Khan) also knew him. He was obviously trying to suppress this fact. When he was asked if he knew Sri Misiryar Khan from before 1974 he paused sometime and then replied that he did not know him prior to the election of 1974. The court had warned him to reply quickly. The conduct of this witness shows that he had joined the camp of Sri Misiryar Khan from before because his brother Vashist Sharma was a staunch supporter of Vaidya Ji, being a Congress candidate. His relation with his brother were strained since long. Even he avoided to reply the question as to whom he had supported during the Pradhani election which had taken place in 1971 between his brother Vashisht Sharma and Sri Shishupal Singh. He stated that he did not remember whom he had supported. He stated that the person of his village was present at that time when he had this talk with Vaidya Ji. He further stated that he was still in the Birdari and was not excommunicated. In my opinion, he cannot be considered to be a very reliable witness and his evidence falls short of establishing the charge of corrupt practice. Moreover his evidence has been sufficiently rebutted. This issue too is decided in the negative against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Issue No. 9: 25. In support of this Issue the petitioner has examined Jitendra Singh (P. W. 6) and Sunderlal (P. W. 9). Moreover his evidence has been sufficiently rebutted. This issue too is decided in the negative against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Issue No. 9: 25. In support of this Issue the petitioner has examined Jitendra Singh (P. W. 6) and Sunderlal (P. W. 9). Their evidence is that Vaidyaji had met them three or four days prior to the polling at about 10 A.M. at the railway gate crossing near their village Sindhauli. The gate was closed and so the car of Vaidya Ji stopped there while Sunderlal (P. W. 9) Jitendra Singh (P. W. 6) and Chhatrapalsingh (not examined) were coming there on cycles from Sindhauli. After they crossed the railway gate, Vaidya Ji called Sunderlal and told him that he had heard that he was supporting the Janta Party candidate and also got the posters printed in support of the Janta Party candidate. Vaidyaji then told him that he was a Hindu and as such he and his campaigners meaning Jitendra and Chhatrapal Singh all should vote for him and not for the Muslim candidate. Vaidyaji who examined himself as R. W. 3 emphatically denied these allegations. He stated that he had gone to Sindhauli only once in the last week of May, 1977 in connection with the election campaign and had not gone there afterwards. Khem Karan (R, W. 5) who is a teacher also stated that Vaidyaji had gone there only once in the last week of May, 1977 and not afterwards. He also stated that he had himself informed Vaidyaji about the poster and that he had seen Sunderlal, Jitendra and Chhatrapal Singh pasting posters on the wall for the Janta Party and he had also given one poster to Vaidyaji subsequently when required by him. He got this poster through a boy. This witness and the respondent both were cross-examined at length in order to show that Vaidyaji could have gone to some other place and not necessarily to Sindhauli through that railway crossing three or four days prior to the polling. But they stood the test of cross-examination well showing that the respondent did not go anywhere at all nor he could go anywhere else after crossing that railway-crossing. It is significant that Jitendra had not given a definite date although sixth of June, 1977 was stated in the petition. But they stood the test of cross-examination well showing that the respondent did not go anywhere at all nor he could go anywhere else after crossing that railway-crossing. It is significant that Jitendra had not given a definite date although sixth of June, 1977 was stated in the petition. Sunderlal (P. W. 9) stated that it was 3 or 4 days prior but he stated that it was Monday. Obviously he gave an explanation for the same that it was Monday because he was observing fast on Monday on the advice of astrologer after he had appeared in the Intermediate examinations and till the result was out. He used to observe fast every year after the examinations. He stated that he was going to Bareilly to bring medicine for his father which had been prescribed by Dr. Krishna Kumar about one and a half years back. There were 2-3 chemist shops at Mirganj. But he did not care to enquire from them if this medicine was available there. Admittedly, he had drafted the poster for the Janta Party. The poster is Ext. R-5. He stated that after drafting it he had sent it to Ali Ahmad, election agent of the petitioner, who got it printed. Ext. R-5/2 is the voucher for printing that poster by the press. He stated that he did not do any other work for the Janta Party. He stated that he himself had drafted it and had given it to Ali Ahmad although Ali Ahmad had not asked him to do so. He stated that during the election of 1974 he had not worked for the B. K. D. It may be stated here that the petitioner had fought the election as B. K. D. candidate and had won it. According to him, he was taking training for BTC at Rampur and had joined the school in 1973 and so he could not have worked for B. K. D. He also stated that Rampur was about 64 km. from Bareilly. Khan Karan (R. W. 5) however, stated that Rampur is about 32 km. from Meerganj. He also stated that he had seen Sunderlal going from Meerganj when he was taking BTC training at Rampur. It was therefore, necessary that Sunderlal could not have worked at Sindhauli or at Mirganj during the 1974 elections because he was taking training at Rampur. Khan Karan (R. W. 5) however, stated that Rampur is about 32 km. from Meerganj. He also stated that he had seen Sunderlal going from Meerganj when he was taking BTC training at Rampur. It was therefore, necessary that Sunderlal could not have worked at Sindhauli or at Mirganj during the 1974 elections because he was taking training at Rampur. This witness also stated that he had seen Sunderlal working for the petitioner in 1974. It is significant that Jitendra (P. W. 8) did not remember that he Sunderlal and Chhatrapal Singh had worked for the B. K. D. during the 1974 elections. He even stated that he did not know if in 1974 he was a member of the B. K. D. Obviously he was trying to suppress the fact of his association and that of Sunderlal with Sri Misiryar Khan since 1974. The language of the poster is such that there can be no doubt that Sunderlal was a staunch supporter of the Janta Party, It was certainly not possible for a candidate opposing Janta Party to have made a futile effort to win over Sunderlal and his close associates. Moreover after that poster had already been printed and pasted what useful purpose could have been served by persuading Sunderlal and his close associates not to support the Janta Party candidate. Sunderlal has stated that he knew Vaidya Ji from before he was a student of the college of which Vaidyaji was the President. Vaidyaji no doubt, stated that he was the President of the Managing Committee. But he stated that he did not know Sunderlal from before. It has not been shown that Sunderlal was such an outstanding student that he should have been known to the President of the Managing Committee. Sunderlal stated that he himself narrated these facts about six or seven days after the election to Ali Ahmad. Ali Ahmad, election agent of the petitioner stated that he was told about this incident by Nazir Ahmad and at that time, date and time was not given. He subsequently made enquiries from Sunderlal after 3 or 34 months and then learnt about the date and time. It would mean that Sunderlal himself had not told him six or seven days after the election. This was obviously an explanation for not giving the date and time in the original petition but by way of better particulars. He subsequently made enquiries from Sunderlal after 3 or 34 months and then learnt about the date and time. It would mean that Sunderlal himself had not told him six or seven days after the election. This was obviously an explanation for not giving the date and time in the original petition but by way of better particulars. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent should have examined the driver of that car who could have given evidence that the respondent was at another place on the date and time alleged in the petition. But no such evidence has been given. The respondent has rebutted the evidence and his witnesses Khem Karan (R. W. 5) has stated that he had not gone to village Sindhauli after his visit in the last week of May, 1977. This witness has also stated that he himself had seen Sunderlal Jitendra and Chhatrapal Singh pasting posters and then working for the Janta Party. I therefore, do not think that it was necessary for the respondent to adduce other better evidence on this issue. It is obvious that Jitendra and Sunderlal are highly interested witnesses who were totally interested in the success of the Janta Party candidate, and it was possible for them to have invented a false story for getting the election of the respondent set aside. On the other hand the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the respondent as it is not probable that the respondent would try to tackle such staunch supporters of the Janta Party by indulging in corrupt practices. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence adduced is of not such a nature that it can be said that the charge of corrupt practice has been established beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondent. I am of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the petitioner has been sufficiently rebutted by the respondent. 26. This issue is, therefore, decided in the negative against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Issues Nos. 10 and 11: 27. Both these issues can be considered jointly as they are connected issues. The allegation is that a meeting was called and addressed by the respondent at the Appashi Kothi, Mankara on 5-6-77 between 10 and 12 A.M. and that people from Mankara and the neighbouring villages, namely Manpur, Kanakpur, Parasarampur, Bhonta, Nirpatpur and Madanpur etc. 10 and 11: 27. Both these issues can be considered jointly as they are connected issues. The allegation is that a meeting was called and addressed by the respondent at the Appashi Kothi, Mankara on 5-6-77 between 10 and 12 A.M. and that people from Mankara and the neighbouring villages, namely Manpur, Kanakpur, Parasarampur, Bhonta, Nirpatpur and Madanpur etc. had attended this meeting. In that meeting respondent had said that the people had voted for the petitioner in 1974 and the result was that he got a mosque constructed in Manpur and in case he was again successful, he would create Pakistan in that area. He then asked the Hindu brethren to be aware and to give a crushing defeat to the Muslim candidate. He thus promoted the feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizen of India and thus committed corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 (3) and 123 (3-A) of the Act. In support of its case the petitioner has examined Ali Ahmad (P. W. 16), Bhoop Singh (P. W. 17) and Zafar Khan (P. W. 18). Ali Ahmad who was the election agent of the petitioner stated that he got information about this meeting on 9th of June, 1977 from Bhup Singh who was the polling agent. Bhup Singh (P. W. 17) and Zafar Khan (P. W. 18) are the persons who are said to have attended this meeting. The respondent examined himself as R. W. 3 and he emphatically denied all these allegations. He stated that he did not go to that village Makara at all. He further stated that in fact he himself had supported the demand for getting a mosque constructed there and so there was no question of his inciting communal feelings. He examined Sri R. C'. Bhardwaj who was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baheri prior to March, 1977. Village Manpura was in that sub-division. He stated that the fact was that Vaidya Ji had supported the Muslim cause and had told him that he should allow the mosque to be constructed in case the Muslims wanted to get the mosque constructed in their own Mohalla and on their own land. Sri Bhardwaj had then recommended the case to the District Magistrate. Subsequently he also acted as returning officer of this Constituency. R. W. 2 Narain Datt Sharma Dy. Sri Bhardwaj had then recommended the case to the District Magistrate. Subsequently he also acted as returning officer of this Constituency. R. W. 2 Narain Datt Sharma Dy. S. F. also stated that he was the Circle Officer of Shishgarh circle from Jan. 1975 till January 1977. He stated that he had also submitted his report before Jan. 1977 in favour of the mosque being constructed and that Vaidya Ji, who was the political leader of that area had told him that in case the mosque was being constructed on their own land then the matter should be decided impartially. This witnesses, no doubt, stated that in that area there was an old dispute pending since 1927 over the construction of a temple and after that temple was constructed in 1934, there was demand for constructing a mosque in that area over since then. He then stated that Bashiruddin, who was the Muslim leader and others who were pressing for the construction of the mosque had told him that he and others had already talked with Vaidya Ji and then he himself talked to Vaidya Ji. On behalf of the petitioner, it was however, argued that if it was a fact that the respondent was favourably inclined for the construction of this mosque it could have been constructed long time back as the respondent had been the Parliamentary Secretary. State Minister and the Cabinet Minister in the Congress regime and that the construction would not have been delayed till 1976 or 1977 when the petitioner was elected M.L.A. for the first time in 1974 after defeating the respondent. It is in evidence that the petitioner was in the opposition in 1974 as he belonged to B.L.D. The respondent might not have been in the assembly but he must be wielding sufficient influence under the Congress regime being an old Congressman. Admittedly, the mosque was constructed under the Congress regime. There does not appear to be any reason to doubt the testimony of two gazetted Government officers, namely, Sri R. C. Bhardwaj R. W. 1 and Sri Narain Datt Sharma Dy. S. P. both of whom were responsible for maintaining law and order in that sub-division at the relevant time. Admittedly, the mosque was constructed under the Congress regime. There does not appear to be any reason to doubt the testimony of two gazetted Government officers, namely, Sri R. C. Bhardwaj R. W. 1 and Sri Narain Datt Sharma Dy. S. P. both of whom were responsible for maintaining law and order in that sub-division at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then argued that in case the mosque was constructed through the good offices of Vaidya Ji, he would certainly have gone to that area for canvassing in order to impress upon the people there that he got the mosque constructed and his statement could not be correct that he did not visit Mankara at all. He however stated that Mankara was a small village and its population consisted of Jats who had always been opposed to the Congress Party and so he did not consider it worthwhile to go to Mankara. The mosque had been constructed in Manpur and not in Mankara. According to the voters list A-72 there were only 80 voters in Mankara. It was therefore, unlikely that he would have chosen this small village for holding there a meeting. Evidence has been led to the effect that the announcement for the meeting was made by a jeep, Jafar Khan (P. W. 18) stated that several Muslims had attended that meeting. In fact, he could give the names Of only Muslims barring one or two Hindus who had attended that meeting, namely, Jumma Khan, Fida Ali, Bashiruddin. Nabi Ahmad and Mohd. Usuf. Learned counsel for the respondent has, therefore, argued that it was improbable that the respondent would have addressed such a meeting which was attended by several Muslims and to which wide publicity had been given and would have incited communal feelings. Jafar Khan (P. W. 18) admitted that his uncle Jhanda Khan had contested the election of Pradhani against Acchan Hussain and had lost that election. He however expressed ignorance if Acchan Khan was working during the 1977 election for the Congress Party and was a supporter of Vaidya Ji. This witness stated that he did not talk to anybody about this meeting earlier and he was deposing about it for the first time in this Court. He however expressed ignorance if Acchan Khan was working during the 1977 election for the Congress Party and was a supporter of Vaidya Ji. This witness stated that he did not talk to anybody about this meeting earlier and he was deposing about it for the first time in this Court. His evidence, therefore, has got to be viewed with suspicion as was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1977 SC 587 (supra) (para 4). This witness could have been easily persuaded by the petitioner to depose against the Congress candidate because of his family rivalry with Acchan Khan. 28. Bhup Singh (P. W. 17) was a polling agent for the Janta party candidate. There can be no doubt that he is a highly interested witness. He did not remember the dates of marriage and birth of his children. But he could remember about the date of this alleged meeting. The evidence of both these witnesses is not of such a nature that it can be said that the charge of the corrupt practice has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the preponderance of probabilities are against the petitioner and in my opinion the evidence adduced on this point bv the petitioner has been sufficiently rebutted by the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent. 29. Both these issues are. therefore, decided in the negative against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Issue No. 12 : 30. It was alleged that the respondent hired and procured various kinds of vehicles and used them for carrying electors to the polling station. On this point, the petitioner has examined Mukhtiar Ahmad (P. W. 3), Kallu Khan Pradhan (P. W. 8) and Pooran (P. W. 14). The respondent has examined himself as R W. 3 his election agent Bhupendra (R. W. 11), Rameshwar Dayal Block Pramukh (R, W. 8), Mukhtiar Ahmad (P. W. 3) stated that about 8-10 days prior to the polling Vaidya Ji had met him at the tube-well in his village Madanpur where his bullock-cart was standing and had enquired from him if the bullock-cart belonged to him. On his saying that it belonged to him, he had paid him Rs. 50/- and had asked him to carry voters from Sillahpur to Mirganj. On his saying that it belonged to him, he had paid him Rs. 50/- and had asked him to carry voters from Sillahpur to Mirganj. He had then taken his bullock-cart to village Sillahpur and there voters were kept seated in his bullock-cart by Sriram Pandit for the Congress party and he had carried those voters to Mirganj polling station. He stated that he did not remember the exact date. He then gave a wrong date of polling saying that the polling took place on 9th of June 1977 while in fact the polling took place on the 10th of June, 1977. He denied the suggestion that he was working as an employee of Sri Misiryar Khan. Corrupt practice has got to be established as a criminal charge and the exact date and time has got to be given. In the petition it was not even mentioned as to from where the voters were carried by this witness. His name was not mentioned in the original petition and it was mentioned by way of better particulars. Even then it was not mentioned as to from where the voters were carried. He was of Madanpur and there was a polling station at Madanpur, This witness only stated that he had left the voters at the crossing of Meerganj. He could not even say as to what was the distance of the polling station from that crossing. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no requirement of law that there should be statement as to from where the voters were brought. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however placed reliance on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Yadav v. Chandrasen (Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 1975 decided on 27-10-1978) in which it was held that the allegation in the petition that "the voters were transported from the adjoining hamlets" is vague in the extreme and in fact borders on the meaningless as it places no information about the place from where voters were transported. Similarly the' names of particular voters too have not been given as to who were carried. This witness or any other worker of the petitioner did not make any complaint about this fact to the Presiding Officer or the sector Magistrate or to any authority as soon as it was detected that he was carrying voters. Similarly the' names of particular voters too have not been given as to who were carried. This witness or any other worker of the petitioner did not make any complaint about this fact to the Presiding Officer or the sector Magistrate or to any authority as soon as it was detected that he was carrying voters. He has himself not stated that he had not charged any fare from even if to be assumed that impliedly he had meant that he had charged Rs. 50/- from the Vaidya Ji and had not charged anything from the voters his evidence falls short of proving this corrupt practice beyond reasonable doubt. In this connection, I may cite the following passage from the above cited judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Yadav (supra). "Ram sarup himself has not been produced In the witness box and no explanation has been offered as to why he did not make a complaint regarding the transportation of voters from Bicchauli and Siani in the tractor and trolly alleged to have been driven by Bhabhuti Pd. This single factor is sufficient to condemn the entire evidence produced on the points as an afterthought. We need hardly say that it is not at all difficult for a defeated candidate to produce a few witnesses in support of such allegations after the event, even though the truth may be far different from what they state." At another place, their Lordships have reiterated the law on this point as follows: "It is well settled that the allegation of corrupt practice has to be made and proved like a charge in a criminal case and that what is not pleaded cannot be allowed to be the subject-matter of evidence as also that the allegations must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not merely by way of preponderance of probabilities." Kallu Khan (P. W. 8) who is a resident of village Islampur and who is the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha stated that after casting his vote at another polling station, he had reached Shergarh at about 3.25 p. m. and he had then met Vaidya Ji there. He had exchanged greetings with Vaidya Ji. At that time he found that Vaidya Ji had come in his ambassador car with one Umashanker, one other person and three women, who got down from that car. He had exchanged greetings with Vaidya Ji. At that time he found that Vaidya Ji had come in his ambassador car with one Umashanker, one other person and three women, who got down from that car. All those five persons then went to cast their votes. It was. therefore, alleged that he committed corrupt practice of procuring vehicles for carrying voters. This witness further stated that at that very time he had noticed that Jamil of Tanda had brought certain persons in his bullock cart. They all went to the congress basta. No person gave fare to Jamil. Vaidya Ji then asked Jamil to take the cart back and bring more voters as the polling was to be closed. This witness has also stated that about 7 or 8 days prior to the polling Vaidya Ji met him and requested him to cast his vote and get the votes of other voters cast in his favour. At that time he was called at the house of Rameshwar Dayal, Block-pramukh. The respondent and Rameshwar Dayal (R. W. 8) denied that they ever had any talk with this witness or that he was called at the house of Rameshwar Dayal. According to them, he was a strong supporter of the petitioner. So far the allegations against Jamil Khan are concerned, that need not be taken into consideration at all as Jamil Khan himself has not been examined although he was mentioned as a witness at serial number 53 in the list of witnesses. This witness stated that he did not know Jamil Khan from before and he learnt his name and also his residence because Vaidya Ji had accosted him saying that "Tandewale Jamil Khan". This is certainly unnatural. As regards the other allegation, even if it was to be assumed that somehow it was a fact, I do not think that carrying of voters in his own vehicle can be a corrupt practice as in such a case it cannot be said that the vehicle was hired or procured. It was so held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Surendra Nath Gautam v. Vidya Sagar Joshi ((1968) 35 Ele LR 129). This authority was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Balwan Singh v. Prakash Chand ( AIR 1976 SC 1187 ). It was so held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Surendra Nath Gautam v. Vidya Sagar Joshi ((1968) 35 Ele LR 129). This authority was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Balwan Singh v. Prakash Chand ( AIR 1976 SC 1187 ). In that case the vehicle belonged to the wife of the petitioner and it was not proved that it actually belonged to the petitioner and it was benami in the name of his wife. It was, therefore, held that it amounted to procuring the vehicle. Their Lordships therefore, did not consider it necessary to examine the correctness of the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the Surendra Nath Gautams case. However, in any view of the matter, I do not believe the evidence of Kallu Khan (P.W. 8) on this point. He was not even a voter at Shergarh polling station, and there was no reason for him to be present there. Rameshwar Dayal (R. W. 8) has stated that Kallu Khan was a worker for the petitioner. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that this evidence of Rameshwar Dayal should be ignored because no such suggestion was given to Kallu Khan (P. W. 8); it was suggested to him that he was deposing falsely under the influence of the petitioner or the election agent Ali Ahmad. He was also cross-examined on the point that he had opposed Rameshwar Dayal in the election of Block pramukh. There can be no doubt that he appears to be highly interested witness and no reliance can be placed on his evidence particularly for establishing the charge of corrupt practice which charge has got to be established beyond reasonable doubt. 31. The last witness on this Issue is Poor an (P. W. 14). He stated that Bhupendra son of Dharamdatt Vaidya had gone to the polling station at Bunchi in his jeep on the polling day at about 12 noon and had told him that very few voters had come from his village. He had then replied that it was extremely hot and so the children and the females had not come. He had then asked him to sit in his jeep and to go to his village for bringing voters. He had then gone to Gokulpura in his jeep. Female voters then had gone from the village. He had then replied that it was extremely hot and so the children and the females had not come. He had then asked him to sit in his jeep and to go to his village for bringing voters. He had then gone to Gokulpura in his jeep. Female voters then had gone from the village. Two or three females of his family also went in the jeep. He then stayed in the village. The jeep had again returned to his village Gokulpur within 10-12 minutes. At that time Bhupendra was not there and only the driver had brought it. He did not remember if other voters had gone to the polling station in that jeep again from his village. Bhupendra (R. W. 11) denied these allegations. He stated that he had not gone to the polling station Bunchi at all. If it was a fact that Bhupendra had gone in his own jeep it would mean the jeep of Vaidya Ji and that would not amount to corrupt practice as already observed by me above placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Surendranath Gautam v. Vidya Sagar Joshi (1968-35 Ele LR 129) (Supra). However, Bhupendra had Stated that he was using the hired jeep on the date of polling. That authority therefore, may not be applied under these circumstances. There is however, a more serious objection against the evidence of this witness Pooran his name was not mentioned in paragraph 19 of the original petition nor there was mention of Bunchi polling station to which the voters had been carried. The name of Bunchi polling station has been introduced by way of better particulars by adding paragraphs 19-A to the petition. Even then the name of this witness is not mentioned. This court had clearly ordered on 23-2-1978 on the application A-15 which was filed under O. VI, R. 16 of the C. P. C. that better particulars with regard to paragraph 19 be supplied by giving registration numbers of the various vehicles and of the owners as far as possible, and the names and full addresses of the owners of the bullock carts too should be supplied. It was made clear that paragraph 19 would be confined to respondent No. 1 only and his election agent and will also be confined to the polling agents mentioned therein. It was made clear that paragraph 19 would be confined to respondent No. 1 only and his election agent and will also be confined to the polling agents mentioned therein. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this court had actually ordered polling stations mentioned therein while it was wrongly typed as polling agents mentioned therein. It is clear that I must have referred to the polling stations mentioned in paragraph 19 and the name of Bunchi polling station appears to have been surreptitiously mentioned by way of better particulars. This was definitely beyond the purview of my order and this addition deserved to be struck out at any stage. Even in the amended paragraph 19-A there is no mention that the voters had been carried from Gorakhpur. In view of the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Yadav v. Chandra Sen, 1978 UJ (SC) 862 (Supra) no evidence could have been allowed to be led with regard to villages from where the voters were said to have been carried when they were not mentioned in the petition, No complaint to this effect was made to the Presiding Officer or any other authority about this incident. For this reason also it can be said that this evidence has been concocted subsequently. Pooran stated as R, W. 14 that he knew Bhupendra from before because he had seen him moving about on the roads asking for votes but he had no talk with him prior to the polling day. He stated that he did not work for any candidate in this election. It is therefore, surprising that Bhupendra would have picked him up and asked him to go to his village to bring voters. This witness also stated that he did not tell anybody about his talk with Bhupendra and about his going in the village in the Jeep and that he was deposing about it for the first time in this Court If so, how the petitioner or his election agent could have known about it. The evidence of this witness also suffers from the infirmity mentioned in the above cited case, reported in AIR 1977 SC 587 (Para. 4) (Supra). He admitted that he had criminal litigation with Jaganlal but expressed ignorance if Jaganlal was an old Congress worker and as such a worker for Vaidya Ji. The evidence of this witness also suffers from the infirmity mentioned in the above cited case, reported in AIR 1977 SC 587 (Para. 4) (Supra). He admitted that he had criminal litigation with Jaganlal but expressed ignorance if Jaganlal was an old Congress worker and as such a worker for Vaidya Ji. It appears that this witness too could be available to the petitioner because of his enmity with Jaganlal. This witness appears to be absolutely got up witness and no reliance whatever can be placed on his evidence. 32. In the light of the above discussion, this issue is also decided in the negative against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Issue No. 13: 33. It is alleged that respondent Vaidya Ji had suppressed the election expenses and had thus committed corrupt practices under Section 123 (6) in contravention of Section 77 of the Act The legations are made in paragraphs 20 and 20 A. Some allegations have been repeated which were made in respect of the corrupt practice of bribery and the expenses m-curred in hiring or procuring vehicles for carrying voters. The witnesses examined on those points are Mukhtiar Ahmad (P. W. 3) Ahmad Nabi (F. W. 5) and Rais alias Anis Ahmad P W 10) along with Sukhlal (P. W. 1) evidence has already been discussed by me and rejected while dealing with issues Nos. 5 and 12. The only witness that remains to be considered for this issue now is Ali Ahmad (P. W. 16) election agent of the petitioner. Certified copies of various vouchers filed by the respondent along with his returns have been exhibited. They are Exts P-2/l to P-2/21 and Exts P-l/l to P-l/29. The respondent has also filed other certified copies which are Exts. R-8/1 to R-8/38. The original record and the return of expenses was also summoned through R. L. Sharma (P. W. 7), an official of the election office. It has been carefully perused by me. The petitioners allegations on this issue are twofold. One allegation is that several vehicles were used during the election compaign on behalf of the respondent and the same must have been hired at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day per vehicle. But those expenses have not been shown. It is also alleged that expenses were incurred in getting vehicles repaired and purchasing their parts from the various dealers. 100/- per day per vehicle. But those expenses have not been shown. It is also alleged that expenses were incurred in getting vehicles repaired and purchasing their parts from the various dealers. But they too have not been shown. Another allegation is that some vouchers had been filed along with the return of expenses when Ali Ahmad had got the returns inspected through a counsel at the earlier occasion but those vouchers had been surreptitiously removed and the expenses had not been shown. Ali Ahamd placed reliance on an application P-9 which he had moved after the second inspection alleging that several vouchers were missing. The respondent and his election agent R. W. 11 have vehemently refuted these allegations. According to them all the vouchers which had been filed are intact. It is a different matter that some vouchers were not available and had been misplaced and as such had not been filed along with the returns although details of expenses were correctly given. There can be no doubt that the complaint Ext. P-9 made by Ali Ahmad was a false complaint altogether. It is an easiest thing for a person to make such a complaint after two inspections. Intrinsically the allegations appeared to be false on the face of it. In the complaint it was stated that some vouchers pertained to vehicle No. GSA 3645. It is significant and it will be too much of a coincidence to have utilised another vehicle having the same digits in the election campaign. Not only this it was stated that vehicles Nos. DHA 4310, DHC-4310, GJX-4310 had been utilised by the respondent and the vouchers pertained to those vehicles while the fact is that GJX 4310 was the vehicle belonging to the District Congress Committee which was used in the election campaign by the President, District Congress Committee Sri Gulab Rai Trivedi (R. W. 9) and the General Secretary etc. It is unimaginable that three more vehicles having the same digits too have been utilised and the vouchers in respect of those vehicles had been filed and later on removed. Ali Ahmad has stated that he had seen many vehicles plying on behalf of the respondent during the election campaign but he had not noted down the registration numbers and he could have information about them after making inspection of the return of expenses. Ali Ahmad has stated that he had seen many vehicles plying on behalf of the respondent during the election campaign but he had not noted down the registration numbers and he could have information about them after making inspection of the return of expenses. He has estimated on the basis of these various vehicles which were mentioned in the coupons filed with the returns that the hiring charges must have been between Rupees 6,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-. This is too vague a statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even on the basis of the admissions made by the respondent and his election agent R. W. 11 it can be said that several other vehicles were utilised during the election campaign and that even petrol was supplied to those vehicles for which coupons had been filed yet their hiring charges have not been shown. Both these -witnesses R. W. 3 and R. W. 11 clearly stated that besides the Ambassador car and the jeep which were owned by the respondent only one jeep had been hired at Rs. 100/-per day and the hiring charges had been shown in the return. They also stated that there was a vehicle GJX 4310 owned by the District Congress Committee as the same had been given to it in 1974 by the AICC. That was also used by the President Sri Gulab Rai Trivedi (R. W. 9) and the General Secretary etc. for which petrol had to be supplied when it was used in this constituency. It was used in eight other constituencies. The respondent and R. W. 9 also stated that eight more jeeps had been supplied by the AICC for the purpose of the assembly elections in the district of Bareilly and they too were utilised by turn in this Constituency as well as in other constituencies. Petrol was supplied to these vehicles also. The congress leaders toured in this Constituency on those vehicles. This is the reason why the vouchers are on record which bear the numbers of various vehicles. The respondent also admitted that vehicle No. USE 2879 which was owned by the wife of Ch. Narainsingh was sometimes utilised in this Constituency when Ch. Narain Singh himself had toured in this constituency. At that time petrol was supplied to that vehicle and so there is mention of that vehicle in the vouchers. The respondent also admitted that vehicle No. USE 2879 which was owned by the wife of Ch. Narainsingh was sometimes utilised in this Constituency when Ch. Narain Singh himself had toured in this constituency. At that time petrol was supplied to that vehicle and so there is mention of that vehicle in the vouchers. The respondent also stated that it was a practice that other congress candidates who were seeking elections in other constituencies also used to tour in this constituency by way of reciprocal arrangement and whenever they used 'to tour in this constituency, petrol and medal mobiloil used to be supplied by the respondent. Similarly petrol and mobiloil used to be supplied to the vehicles of other congress leaders who used to tour. In my opinion, sufficient explanation has been given as to why the vouchers filed along with the return of expenses mention the registration numbers of the various vehicles while no hiring charges for those vehicles had been shown. There is no evidence whatsoever to establish that all those vehicles had been actually hired. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the accounts of AICC should have been summoned by the respondent to refute the allegations and that Ch. Narain Singh himself should have been examined as a witness. I do not think that it was at all necessary to summon the accounts or examine Ch. Narain Singh as sufficient explanation has been given by R. W. 3, R. W. 9, and R. W. 11' while no definite evidence has been adduced on behalf of the petitioner to show that these vehicles had been hired. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the election agent of the respondent admitted that he had filled 40 or 50 litres of petrol each time in the hired jeep on 28-5-1977, 1-6-1977, 4-6-1977 and 7 or 10-6-1977. But the credit memos are not on the record and as such costs of these two hundred litres of petrol may be added to the expenses of respondent No. 1. R. W. 3 and R. W. 11 both have stated that several vouchers were lost and could not be filed with the returns as they were kept separately in a drawer by the nephew of the respondent Ram Kumar who was maintaining these accounts. R. W. 3 and R. W. 11 both have stated that several vouchers were lost and could not be filed with the returns as they were kept separately in a drawer by the nephew of the respondent Ram Kumar who was maintaining these accounts. Moreover Bhupendra was not cross-examined with reference to the various petrol bills for showing that there was omission of mention of petrol supplied to this jeep on those dates. Bhupendra stated that he did not remember the registration number of the hired jeep. He has given the number of the jeep owned by his father as UTD 5187 and the number of the ambassador car owned by his father as USE 3645. In the absence of definite evidence with regard to that hired jeep, it is not possible to hold that the expenses met in petrol in that jeep have been suppressed. Even Ali Ahmad had not stated as to what was the registration number of that jeep. He has no doubt stated that he had seen RSL 508 plying during the election campaign on the congress candidate, that is, respondent No. 1 it was argued that he was not even cross-examined on this point and no evidence was led to the effect that RSL 508 was the jeep belonging to the AICC. It is true that the numbers of the jeeps belonging to the AICC have not been given but a definite statement has been made by R. W. 3 and R. W. 11 that petrol used to be supplied to the various vehicles which were being used in this constituency by the congress leaders or even the candidates of other constituency. Under these circumstances in the absence of definite evidence on the point that certain vehicles had been actually hired and then utilised, it is not possible to hold that they had been actually hired simply because petrol coupons in respect of such vehicles had been filed. On the other hand it shows bona fides of the respondent that no expenses whatsoever have been suppressed, whether they were incurred in supplying petrol to the vehicles owned by the respondent or which were used by other leaders and the candidates. 34. On the other hand it shows bona fides of the respondent that no expenses whatsoever have been suppressed, whether they were incurred in supplying petrol to the vehicles owned by the respondent or which were used by other leaders and the candidates. 34. On this issue, Ali Ahmad also stated that he had made enquiries from M/s. Syed Capital Works and they were even able to obtain some papers showing that expenses had been incurred in carrying repairs of the vehicles utilised by the respondent in the election compaign and in purchasing parts. Some papers which are Exts. A-57 to A-60 have been filed. They purport to be of M/s. Syed Capital Works, M/s. Shaima Brothers and M/s. Bareilly Motor Works. They have not been proved. The petitioner obtained summons for summoning the proprietors and partners of those three firms but they did not appear. The petitioner had then applied for taking coercive process against them. I however, rejected that application by my order dated 26-10-1978 as it. would have unnecessarily prolonged the hearing as such an application was moved after the petitioners evidence was over. I allowed only one more opportunity to summon those witnesses but. none of them appeared. Obviously they would not have supported the petitioners case in case they had appeared in Court. 35. Lastly it was stated that the respondent must have made expenses in providing flags, notices, identification slips to various polling stations. R. W. 3 his election agent R. W. 11 and the President of the District Congress committee R. W. 9 have all stated that all these articles were supplied by the AICC and as such the respondent did not incur any expenses. In my opinion, the petitioner miserably failed to establish this charge against the respondent. 36. This issue is therefore, also decided in the negative against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Issues Nos. 14 and 15: 37. These two issues have already been disposed of by my order dated 14-8-1978. Issue No. 16: 38. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Order 39. In the result the petitioner is dismissed with costs payable to respondent No. 1 which asses at Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand).