By this petition the petitioner has prayed for a declaration, inter, alia, that the election of respondent from 16. Bishalgarh Assembly constituency, Tripura, for short, 'constituency in question to the Legislative Assembly in the general election held in 1983 is void and that the petitioner was duly elected from the said constituency in question. 2. In the general election held in the year 1983 to the Legislative Assembly of Tripura on 5th January, 1983 the petitioner, a candidate sponsored, by the political party namely. Congress (I) and the respondent sponsored by the political party C. P. J (M) were the contesting candidates from the constituency in question. The respon­ dent secured 7,340 votes while the petitioner secured 6,900 and as a result the respondent was declared duly elected from the constituency in question. Aggrieved by the election result, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition alleging, inter alia, that corrupt practices were resorted to, undue influence was practised, unfair means were adopted by the members, supporters of the political party which sponsored the respondent and/or other persons acting as agents of the respondent and/or his election agent and/or by the respondent himself and/or his election agent to win the said election. It may be stated that the political party C. P. I (M) was a part of the political group known as 'Left Front' which sponsored the candidature of the respondent. In the election petition it also has been alleged that ballot boxes were tampered with, instructions issued by the Election Commission and rules framed under relevant laws were not followed, that the counting was improper and that there had been improper reception of votes by the officers in favour of the respondent with the consent of the respondent and/or his election agent. 3. On the pleadings the following issues were framed by my learned predecessor vide order dated 13.9.83 “(1). Whether the election petition has been filed in accordance with law as prescribed under R. P. Act, 1951, and Con­duct of the Election Rules, 1961 ? (2). 3. On the pleadings the following issues were framed by my learned predecessor vide order dated 13.9.83 “(1). Whether the election petition has been filed in accordance with law as prescribed under R. P. Act, 1951, and Con­duct of the Election Rules, 1961 ? (2). Whether the allegations made in paragraph 10 of the petition to the effect that the respondent and/or his election agent and/or any person with the consent and/or with the know­ledge of the respondent and/or his election agent committed corrupt practices and whether the allegations made in para­graphs 8,9,10 ( inclusive of sub-paras ), 11,12,13, 14 and 17 are vague due to lack of material facts and/or particulars ? (3). It there any variance between the contents of verifications of the petition and the affidavits to the petition and if so, what will be effects thereon. Has the result of the election been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void as alleged in para-graphs 10 (c), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(g), 10(h), 10(i), I0(j), 10(k), 10(m)(n) and 17(a) of the petition ? (5). Did the respondent and/or his election agent and/or any person with the consent and/or knowledge of the respondent and/or his election agent commit corrupt practices as alleged in the petition ? (6) Has the result of the election been materially affected by any corrupt practices alleged to have been committed in the interest of the respondent by any of his agents other than his election agent as alleged in the petition ? (7). Has the result of the said election been materially affected by non-compliance of any relevant provisions as laid down under the R P. Act, 1951. or under the Rules and Orders made thereunder as alleged by the petitioner in the petition ? (8). To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled to ?” 4. My learned predecessor by an order dated 8.8.84 passed in Misc. Case No. 336 of 1984 also framed an addititional issue which runs as follows :- Whether the allegations made in paragraph 10(b), 10(q), 10(n) and I0(s) in paragraph 10 of the election petition as to the allegations of corrupt practices of bribery by distribution of blanket by respondent No. 1 and the use of vehicles for free con­veyance of the voters are correct ? And if so, whether the result of the election was materially affected thereby FINDINGS Issue No. 1 5. When the case was taken up for argument on .30.10.87 Mr.S.B. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the judge­ ment and order dated 13.9.83 passed in Misc. Case No. 316 of 1983 and submitted that this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner, but this position was not accepted by Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. An application was filed on behalf of the respondent under O.VII R.11l of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No.316 of 1983 as mentioned earlier and this petition was dismissed by my learned predecesser by an order dated 13.9.8 . Issue No.1 is regarding filing of the Election petition in accordance with law as rescribed under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. While dismissing the aforesaid petition under O.V II R.11 C.P.C. my learned predecessor held that the petitioner did not violate the provisions of section 83 of the aforesaid Act or Rule 94-A of the aforesaid Rules. 7. Issue No. 2 was taken up for hearing as a preliminary one on 9.11.83 and it was decided by the judgement and order dated 15.12.83 From the judgement dated 15.12.83 by which the above issue No.2 was disposed of my learned predecessor clearly stated as follows ; 4 “So far as issue No. 1 is concerned it is no necessary to take it up again as the said issue was disposed of on 13.9.83 on the basis of the application made under O.VII R.11 C.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 316 of 1983.” This was also dully recorded in the order dated 9.11.83. 8. Situated thus, it is abundantly clear that issue No.l was decided in favour of the petitioner by my learned predecessor. So the objection of Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent has no force. Issue No. 2 9. There are two parts in respect of this issue. 8. Situated thus, it is abundantly clear that issue No.l was decided in favour of the petitioner by my learned predecessor. So the objection of Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent has no force. Issue No. 2 9. There are two parts in respect of this issue. As stated earlier this issue was taken up for preliminary hearing and by judgement dated 15.12.83 my learned predecessor decided the second part of the issue namely ; whether the allegations made in paragraphs 8,9,10 (inclusive of sub-paras), 11,12,13,14 and 17 are vague due to lack of material facts and/or particulars, in favour of the petitioner and as such I need not enter into this aspect of the question. Regarding the first part of this issue I shall take it up along with issues No. 5 and 6. Issue No. 4 10. This issue was not pressed by the learned counsel for the peti­tioner and as such it needs no decision. Issue No. 7 11. This issue was not pressed by the learned counsel for the peti­tioner. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent has pressed this Court for a decision on this issue but I see no reason to examine this question as it has not been pressed. As this issue relates to non-compliance of the provisions of law, Rules and Orders, as alleged by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that even if no decision is given on this issue it will in any way prejudice the case of the respondent. Hence I need not enter into the controversy raised in this issue. 12. Before proceeding further to discuss the other issues it would be apposite to mention that at the time of examination in-chief of R.W.8 the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner would not press the allegations made in para 10 (a) to 10 (m), 10(p) (q) (r) (s) and 10 (o) (xiv) to 10 (o) (xvii) and the consequential issues were not pressed. This was duly recorded not only at the time of examination of R.W.8 but also in the order sheet dated 29.10.87. Issue No. 3 13. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to some of the paragraphs and also the verification and the affidavit of the petition in support of his argument in respect of this issue. Issue No. 3 13. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to some of the paragraphs and also the verification and the affidavit of the petition in support of his argument in respect of this issue. Regarding paragraphs 1,2 and 3 there is no dispute that these paragraphs were not verified. In my opinion, verification of these para­graphs is not necessary as these are matters of Government Notification. Regarding other paragraphs to which my attention has been drawn by Mr. Chakraborty, as stated earlier, the allegations made in these para­graphs were not pressed at the time of argument. Moreover, the para­graphs which were pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in which allegations of corrupt practices have been made have been properly verified and supported by an affidavit as required under the law That apart, this Court in Kashiram Reang V. Bajuban Reang & Ors., A.I.R 1982 NOC. 70 (Gauhati) held that wherein an election petition the statements therein about corrupt practice are verified to be true only to the petitioner's knowledge, though the affidavit speaks otherwise, that is, some of the statements of the para of the election petition are based on his knowledge and some on information from others, the veri­fication of the election petition cannot be dismissed for such defect in the verification, the allegations of corrupt practices cannot be ignored merely on the ground that the source of information is not disclosed. Non-disclosure of the source of information in the affidavit and non-comp­liance with the Rules of the High Court as to the form of the affidavit which requires that the source of information should be disclosed, is not fatal to the petition. Nor is the defect in the affidavit fatal to the petition. For the reasons stated above, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. Additional issue 14. As the petitioner has not pressed the allegations made in para­graph 10 (b), 10 (q), 10 (m) and JO (s) of the petition, this issue was not pressed and as as such no decision is called for on this issue. Issues No. 2 (First part), 5 and 6 15. In view of the fact that the allegations made in some paragraphs. Issues No. 2 (First part), 5 and 6 15. In view of the fact that the allegations made in some paragraphs. as stated above, have been given up by the petitioner, the only allegation to be decided in respect of these issues is regarding alleged corrupt prac­tices adopted by the respondent, his election agent and his other agents with the consent of the respondent and/or his election agent. Before I take of up the facts of this present case it is necessary to discuss the law regarding corrupt practices. 16. This Court speaking through Hansaria, J. in Sri Mazibur Rahman vs. Sri Khonehedur Rahman Khan, (1986) 1 GLR 209 summarized the law as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions regarding burden of proof and other circumstances which the Court has to keep in mind while deciding an election petition on this ground and the same is reproduced below - 1) Allegation of corrupt practice is quasi criminal in nature, or is substantially akin to criminal charges, because it not only vitiates the election but also disqualifies the person concerned from taking part in it for a considerable long time or may extinguish the man's public life. 2) A grave and heavy onus rests on the petitioner to establish the allegetion by clear, cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot be established by a mere balance of probabilities, corrupt practice has to be proved to the hilt by the petitioner and the standard of proof of such an allegation being the same as a charge of fraud in a criminal case. 3) Strong suspicion would not be sufficient and benefit of doubt belongs to the returned candidate. 4). There is. however, one difference between a criminal action and an election petition. The same is that the election trial doss not give liberty to the other side to keep mum, and the charge has to be examined on appraisal of the evidence adduced by both the sides. 5) Oral evidence has to be judged with greatest care as very often the evidence is of partisan witnesses like workers, agents, supporters and friends who have {o be regarded as highly interested and as such, corroboration of independant source, underlying circumstances, or contemporaneous and unimpeachable documents is sought for as a matter of prude­nce to lend assurance to the verbal testimony. 6) Mere consistency in the evidence may not weigh, as tutored witnesses are capable of being consistent. So, if the evidence is brought with inherent improbabilities and replete with natural tendencies, Court may reject the same. 7) Necessary particulars, statement of facts and essential in­gredients of corrupt practice must be pleaded with exactitude and precision and the petitioner has also to give time, place, names of persons etc, relating to the alleged corrupt practice, and the pleading must further show as to whether the corrupt practice was indulged in by the candidate him­self or by his authorised election agent or by any other persons with express or implied consent of the petitioner or his election agent. 8) No evidence can be led which is beyond pleadings. To this, I would add now that in a petition for declaration of an election to be void, on the ground of fraud or corrupt practice if two views are possible-one in favour of the elected candidate and other against him the Court should not interfere with the expensive electoral process and instead of setting at naught the election of the wining candidate should be upheld in giving him the benefit of doubt, as laid down by the Apex Court in, Ram Singh & Others V. Col. Ram Singh. A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 3. 17. To decide the issues it will be necessary to appreciate the evi­dence on record. The principle regarding such appreciation was laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Saran Yadav V. Thakor Muneshwar Nath Singh & Others, (1984) 4 SCC,649, which is as follows :- While appreciating the evidence the Court must be guided by the following considerations ; 1) the nature, character, respectability and credibility of the evidence, 2) The surrounding circumstances and the improbabilites appearing in the case., 3) The totality of the effect of the entire evidence which leaves a lasting impression regarding the corrupt practices alleged. Of course, while insisting on standard of strict proof, the Court should not extend or stretch the doctrine to such an extent so as to made it well nigh impossible to prove an allegation of corrupt practice ; as such an approach would defeat and frustrate the very laudable and sacrosanct object of the Act in maintaining purity of the electoral process (See S. Harcharan Singh vs. S. Sajjan Singh & Others, (1985) I SCC, 370) 18. Situated thus, let me examine the main allegations of corrupt practices in the case in hand. The allegations of corrupt practices are in relation to personal character and conduct of the petitioner which, according to the petitioner were false. The said allegations are ; 1). Publication of editorials and news items in the newspaper 'Daily Desherkatha, printed and published on behalf of C.P.I (M) marked as Exts 5 1,6(1) and (2), 7(1),8(1), 9(1), 10(1), HO) and (2)and 12(1). 2). Wall writings on the Office of the B.D.O, Bishalgarh at the instance of Sri Manik Ghose, Election Agent of the respondent (vide photograph Exr.2), 3). Free distribution of the above newspaper 'Daily Desherkatha' at various tea stalls and pasting of the said newspaper at various places. 4). Meetings held (a) in the house of Rabindra Deb on 26.12 82, (b) on 17.12.82 in the New Market ground and (c) on 29.12. 82 in the ground of Bishalgarh Town S. B. School presided over by Abdul Gaffur Munsi and addressed by Samar Mukherjee, M.P. and others. 5). A women procession on 27.12.82 at Bishalgarh led by Smt. Purnima Chakraborty and 6). The statement of the respondent in the house of Police Constable, Rasaraj Das, who was murdered at Bishalgarh. 19. I propose to deal first with the writing of the editorials and publication of news items in the aforesaid newspaper. Though all the aforesaid news items have been marked as Exts. at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only the news items Exts. 6 (1), 9 (1), 11 (1) and (2) and 12 (1) are relevant for the present purpose, as in the said news items news have been published concerning the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. Of course, Mr. Barman Roy submits that other news items also made various false innuendo as from re ding these news items indications were that the petitioner alone was the subject of attack by these news items. I have gone through the news items, for example, Ext. 5 (1) is an editorial written against < 11 the Congress candidates and I am of the opinion that the other news items do not relate to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner and as such I need not consider the said news items. 20. In news item Ext. 5 (1) is an editorial written against < 11 the Congress candidates and I am of the opinion that the other news items do not relate to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner and as such I need not consider the said news items. 20. In news item Ext. 6 (1) there is an allegation that the petitioner being irritated obstructed the Left Front workers from writing on the walls and also tried to kidnap the Left Front worker, Shri Sarijit Saha by lifting him in his vehicle. Ext. 9(1) is a news item wherein it was reported that Congress (I) candidate, the petitioner was seen proceeding towards a place called Lakshmibill from the house of Suklal Saha in two vehicles loaded with young men with iron roads etc. In this news item it has also been reported that Congress (I) workers attacked C.PJ (M) workers at Lakshmibill. In the news item Ext. 11 (1) it was reported that the petitioner has gone mad having failed to mobilise public support and tore away flags, posters of C.P.I. (M) and thereafter entered the Police Station and abused the officer-in-charge. In Ext. 11 (2) there was also an allegation that Congress (I) supporters led by the petitioner destroyed all election materials of C P.I. (M) at Bishalgarh Bazar and the sign board of Tripura Truck Drivers' Syndicate and thereafter they went to Jangalia and destroyed the party office (C.P.I. (M). In Ext. 12 (1) it was reported that Congress (I) supporters led by the petitioner were creating - n atmosphere of terror for the last few days and they also murdered the Police constable, Rasaraj Das of Lakshmibill. 21. There is no dispute that the news paper was published on behalf of State Committee of C. P.I. ( vi) and edited by Shri Gautam Das. The petitioner has not examined the Printer or Publisher of the said news paper or any other witnesses in respect of the aforesaid publication. Mr. Barman Roy submits that from the statement made in the written statement it is established that the respondent admits the publication of the said news items and in view of the said admission it is not necessary for the petitioner to prove this fact. These news items have been dealt with in paragraphs 32 to 39 of the written statement. Barman Roy submits that from the statement made in the written statement it is established that the respondent admits the publication of the said news items and in view of the said admission it is not necessary for the petitioner to prove this fact. These news items have been dealt with in paragraphs 32 to 39 of the written statement. The stand of the respondent, inter alia, is that the liability for publishing these news items is with the Editor, Printer and Publisher ' of the said newspaper and the respondent or his election agent has got no responsibility or nexus with the said newspaper or with the said news items and that the respondent does not have any connection with the publication, distri­bution and editing of the said newspaper and as such he does not have any responsibility. It has also been urged in the written statement that if there was any dispute regarding the news items, the dispute was between the petitioner and the newspaper and further the Printer, Publisher and Editor of a newspaper is guided by the relevant law and the respondent or his election agent has no respon­sibility or liability regarding the aforesaid newspaper. In my opinion, from the stand taken by the respondent in the written statement in the aforesaid paragraphs it is clear that the respondent did not admit the responsibility of the aforesaid news items and as such the onus is heavily on the petitioner to prove consent of the respondent or his election agent in respect of publication of the aforesaid news items. 22. There is not a iota of evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner to show that the news items were published with the consent On the respondent or his election agent. Mr. Barman Roy submits that as this newspaper has been published on behalf of the political party, C.P.I (M) which sponsored the candidature of the respondent, the newspaper can be treated as an agent of the respondent. I am afraid of that I cannot accept this contention as the news paper has got a separate entity and it cannot be treated as an agent for the purpose of election petition 23. Even assuming that the newspaper acted as an agent for the respondent, let me consider whether there was any consent of the respondent in publishing these news items. 24. Even assuming that the newspaper acted as an agent for the respondent, let me consider whether there was any consent of the respondent in publishing these news items. 24. In Samant N. Balkrishna & Another v. George Fernandez & Others, 1969 (3) S.CC., 238, Mr Atrey was an agent of Mr. Fernandez in the election and was also an Editor of the Newspaper 'Maratha' wherein a column 'George' Fernandez's Election Front' was published regularly for the purpose of propaganda in favouj of Mr. Fcraandez and some news items were published in the said newspaper which were the subject matter of the petition regarding corrupt practice. The Apex Court held that every act of Mr. Atrey could not be attributed to Mr. Fernandez so as to make him liable though consent of the candidate need not be directly proved. The Court further held that an agent cannot make the candidate responsible unless the candidate has consented and that if every act of an agent must be presumed to be with the consent of the candidate there will be no room for application of the extra condition laid down in Section 100(1) (d) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, because whenever agency is proved either directly or circumstantially, the finding about consent under the above Section will have to follow. In that case though the Court was satisfied that Mr. Atrey published the false statement relating to the character and conduct of the opponent of Mr. Fernandez, Court refused to interfere with as there was nothing to prove that he did so with the consent of Mr. Fernandez nor can such consent be implied because in making the statements Mr. Atrey was acting as the Editor of his own newspaper 'Maratha' and not acting for Mr. Fernandez. 25. Relying on this decision the Apex Court in Manmohan Kalia v. Shri Yesh and Others, A.I.R. 1984 S C. 1161 held that a news item without any further proof of what actually happened through witnesses is of no value and it is at best a secondhand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it and in this process the truth might get perverted. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it and in this process the truth might get perverted. It was also held that such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible. 26. In Harasingh Charan Mohanty v. Surendra Mohanty, A I.R. 1974 SC, 47 the elected candidate was at all material times and even at the date of election petition was an Editor of an Oriya y 'The Kalinga' and it was alleged that he published in his newspaper and editorial making religious appeal. The allegation was denied and the elected candidate stated that he did not authorise or consent to any one publishing the new items. The Apex Court considered the word 'agent' under the explanation to Section 123 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 and held that if the allegation is that the corrupt practice was committed by any agent other than an election agent, the petitioner must prove that it was committed by the agent with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. The court further held that consent or agency cannot be inferred from remote causes and that consent cannot also be inferred from close friendship or other relationship or political affiliation. 27. In Amolak Chand Chhazad v. Bhagwandas Arya, A.I R. 1977 S. C 813, there was .an allegation that the leaflet was published and distributed regarding personal character and conduct of the respondent which the successful candidate knew to be false and did not believe to be true. The Apex Court held that even assuming the newspaper and the petitioner wanted the elected candidate to be defeated, in absence of any direct evidence that it was at the insistence of the elected candidate that the offending article was published, it was not possible to hold that the allegation was proved. 28. In Haji C. H. Mohammed Koya vs. T. K. S. M. A. Muthukoya, A.I.R. 1979 S.C., 154, Md. 28. In Haji C. H. Mohammed Koya vs. T. K. S. M. A. Muthukoya, A.I.R. 1979 S.C., 154, Md. Koya, the appellant was the elected candidate and his election was challenged on the ground that he, as Chief Editor of the Daily newspaper 'Chandrika', an official organ of the Muslim League published several articles and extracts of speeches and cartoons appealing to the muslims to vote for the appellant on religious and communal grounds. The Apex Court considered the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act (No. 25 of 1867) and held that Md. Koya was not the Editor of the newspaper. Constructive knowledge in respect of the said news item cannot be ascribed to the appellant and as such it was incumbent on the petitioner to prove consent of the appellant in respect of the said news items. 29. Situated thus, I find that except proving the news items and that too under objection from the respondent the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that the respondent gave consent to the publication of these news items. The Printer, Publisher or the Editor of the newspaper has not been examined. There is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner gave consent to the said publication. Reading Sections 100 and 123 of the Representation of People Act. 1951, it is absolutely clear that in case of corrupt practices committed by the agent it must be proved that the said a sent did so with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. As stated above, even assuming that the newspaper was acting as an agent of the petitioner during election propaganda, there is absolutely no evidence that the respondent or his election agent gave consent to the publication of the news items in question. 30. Mr. Barman Roy submits that prove of express consent is not necessary and it may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and according to him as there was no protest regarding publication of the said newspaper by the respondent, consent can be inferred and in support he has placed reliance on Bhagwan Datta Shastri vs. Ram Ratanji Gupta, A.I.R. 1960 S. C. 200, Balwan Singh vs. Kajsgnu Narain & Others, A. I. R. 1960 SC, 770 and Sheopat Singh vs. Harish Chandra, A. I. R. 1960 S C. 1217. 31. 31. In Bhagwan Datta (supra) the voters were carried to the polling station at the connivance of the appellant who was a party candidate. In Balkan Singh (supra) women voters were carried in a tractor to the polling station and a red flag was hoisted arid posters were pasted on the tractor and on these evidence the Apex Court accepted that the voters were carried with the consent of the elected candidate. In Sheopat Singh (supra) a candidate after knowing that voters were carried to the polling station and did not prohibit the regular repetition of similar act and was held that there was reasonable inference to draw that this act was committed with the consent of the candidate, 32. In the, case in hand, it is not the case that the same news item was published everyday in the newspaper. The news items exhibited were on different dates and relating to different facts and circumstances. So there was no, repetition of the sane act and as such the contention of Mr. Barman Roy has no force. 33. On the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, Mr. Chakraborty has rightly pointed out that the news items are. secondhand secondary evidence and the petitioner should have taken steps to produce the manuscript, examine the Editor. Printer and Publisher. That apart, as held in Manmohan Kalia (supra) the news item without any further proof of what actually happened through witnesses is of no value and these are all secondhand secondary evidence. 34. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that these news items do not relate to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner but regarding his public and political character and conduct and in support has placed reliance on Shri Ram Chandra Bhatia vs. Sri Hardayal. U. J. (SC.) 1986 (1) 641. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chakraborty as reading these news items it is apparent to me that these were in respect of personal character and conduct of the petitioner. (N.B.-Paragraphs 35 to 40 are not for report as per order of the Court) 41. The next allegation of the petitioner is that on and from 11.12.1982 some young boys led by Purnima Chakraborty. R.W. 3 pasted the newspaper on the wall of Girija Stores at Bishalgarh market every day. Petitioner has examined P.Ws 3,6 and 9 in support of the above allegation. 42. The next allegation of the petitioner is that on and from 11.12.1982 some young boys led by Purnima Chakraborty. R.W. 3 pasted the newspaper on the wall of Girija Stores at Bishalgarh market every day. Petitioner has examined P.Ws 3,6 and 9 in support of the above allegation. 42. P.W. 3 has stated along with other allegations that he went to south market to purchase a lungi and there he saw on the eastern side of Girija Stores. 5/6 persons reading newspapers which were pasted on the wall of the said Girija Stores and he also read the said newspapers. He did not state contents of the newspapers that he read on that date on the walls of Girija Stores. P.W. 6 is the owner of Oirija Stores and it is surprising that he could not give the date of publication of the newspaper though according to him it was pasted on the walls of his shop by some young boys led by R.W. 3. P.W 9 has also deposed in respect of the fact of pasting of the newspaper, but he has stated he did not read it except one day, but that too he could not give the date and the contents. Incidently. it may be mentioned that P.W. 7 stated that he saw some powers being pasted on the wall of Ginja Stores which is contrary to the allegations made in the petition. The evidence of P. Ws 3, 6 and 9 is peneral in nature and it cannot be held that there was any pasting of the said newspaper on the wall of Girija Stores. Apart from denial of this allegation by the respon­ dent and his election agent. R W. 2 has cetegorically stated that Girija Stores had two doors on the northern and one in the eastern side and there was no space for pasting of any newspaper. R.Ws 3 and 7 have also stated that they did not see any newspaper being pasted at the relevant time on the will of the Girija Stores. I therefore, hold that the petitioner has failed to prove this allegation by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. The petitioner has alleged that since 11.12.82 respondent and his election agent caused free distribution of the said newspaper Daily Deshar Katha at 5 tea stalls named in the petition. I therefore, hold that the petitioner has failed to prove this allegation by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. The petitioner has alleged that since 11.12.82 respondent and his election agent caused free distribution of the said newspaper Daily Deshar Katha at 5 tea stalls named in the petition. To prove this fact petitioner has examined P Ws 3, 7 & 9. This witnesses have only deposed regarding alleged free distribution of the newspapers only in two tea stalls namely Sujata Mistanna Bhandar and tea stall of Kanulal Saha, P.W. 7. P.W 3 deposed that one day he saw 5/6 persons reading the newspaper at Sujata Mistanna Bhandar and laughing and he also read the news item wherein it was reported not to vote for women torturer Congress (I). He further stated that on enquiry from the owner of Sujata Mistanna Bhandar, he came to know that the newspaper was distributed free of costs. This witness has not given the date on which the alleged news item appeared in the said newspaper. That apart the owner of Sujata Mistanna Bhandar has not been examined and as such his statement that the newspaper was distributed free of costs is inadmissible. In view of the above circumstances it cannot be held that the newspaper was distributed free of cost to Sujata Mistanna Bhandar. P W. 7 who is the owner of the tea stall stated that hawker delivered free of cost, as per instruction of the respondent, the said newspaper and that the election agent of the respondent, R.W. 8 enquired whether he was getting the newspaper regularly. I have already stated the respectibility of this witness, namely, P.W. 7. P.W. 9 stated that he was no sigh-board in front of the said tea stall. From the size, the daily income and the fact that there was no signboard on his shop, T am unable to accept the evidence of this witness P.W. 7 in respect of such a serious charge of corrupt practice. R.W. 2 stated that at the relevant time P.W. 7 had no tea stall at the places in question. From the size, the daily income and the fact that there was no signboard on his shop, T am unable to accept the evidence of this witness P.W. 7 in respect of such a serious charge of corrupt practice. R.W. 2 stated that at the relevant time P.W. 7 had no tea stall at the places in question. An attempt has been made by examining P.W. 9 to show that in the morning of a particular day a hawker delivered the said newspaper and there was an altercation between P.W. 9 and other customers as P.W. 9 stated that the news item published in the said newspaper was false. I find it difficult to believe. I have already discussed about the respectibility of P.Ws 7 and 9 and I, therefore hold that their evidence it not at all inspiring. It is relevant to mention here that to prove free distribution of newspaper right person would have been either the agent of the said newspaper at Bishalgarh or the hawker. Petitioner has examined none. Situated thus, I find that though petitioner has alleged free distribution of the newspaper in question in 5 tea stalls, he failed to prove such distribution even in respect of two tea stalls. 43. It has already been stated that only in some of the news items appearing in the said newspaper Daily Deshar Katha there were character assassination of the petitioner. No specific evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove that the newspaper wherein the aforesaid news items were published were pasted either in front of the office of the CPI (M) at Bishalgarh and Jangalia and on the wall of Girija Stores and distributed freely in the tea stalls by the respondent, his election agent or other agents with their consent. 44. The next allegation is that on 29.12.82 in a meeting held in the field of the town S.B. School at Bishalgarh presided over by Abdul Gaffur Munsi ( R.W. 5 ) and addressed by Shri Samar Mukhurji, M.P., respondent spoke against the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. The evidence adduced to prove this fact is absolutely unbelievable and cannot be relied upon Though the allegation was that respondent spoke in the meeting. The evidence adduced to prove this fact is absolutely unbelievable and cannot be relied upon Though the allegation was that respondent spoke in the meeting. P.W.6, the owner of the Girija Stores stated that though he did not go to the meeting, he heard the announcement from his shop that Shri Samar Mukherjee, M.P. was due to arrive and that respondent would address the meeting. This is contrary to the statement made in the petition. P.W. 6 further stated though many meetings organised by different parties took place, he could not remember who spoke in those meetings. Regarding the present meeting he stated that he did not remember the contents of the entire speech of the respondent, but he remembered the fact that the respondent made an appeal to the public to defeat the Congress (I) candidate who was a women torturer of 1973 at bishalgarh and that the petitioner was a communal person. He admits that in some of the other meetings some Union Ministers spoke, but he did not remember the contents of the speeches of the said Ministers. Thus from the evidence of this sole witness, P.W. 6, it cannot be held that in the said meeting the respondent gave a speech attacking the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. R.W. 5 has categorically stated that the respondent did not say anything against the petitioner. R.W. 2 who used toreside near Bishalgarh market stated that tae respondent in the said meeting only spoke regarding the achievements of the Left Front Government and activities of the Congress (() and did not make any personal attack on the petitioner. Situated thus, I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove this allegation of corrupt practice. 45. It has been alleged that on 26.12.82 at about 3 P.M. in the house of Rabindra Deb of Parchim Nabinagar respondent delivered a speech regarding personal character and conduct of the petitioner. It has also been alleged that on the same day at about 6 P.M. another meeting was held at Kadamatali in the house of Razimuddin Mia where similar speech was made by the respondent. To prove these two meetings, the petitioner has examined P.W. 8. R.W. 6 is the eldest brother of P.W. 8. From the evidence of R.W.8. It has also been alleged that on the same day at about 6 P.M. another meeting was held at Kadamatali in the house of Razimuddin Mia where similar speech was made by the respondent. To prove these two meetings, the petitioner has examined P.W. 8. R.W. 6 is the eldest brother of P.W. 8. From the evidence of R.W.8. I find that the house of Rabindra Deb is about 1|-K.M. ~away from their house and that it is about 150/200 cubits from the main road and one has to go to the house of Rabindra Deb from the main road through a lane and it is not possible to see the house of Rabindra Deb from the main road. P.W. 8 has stated that 8 or 9 days before election while he was going to his father-in-law's house on getting the information that his mother-in-law was not well, he saw the meeting and heard the alleged speech made by the respondent in the said meeting in the house of Rabiadra Deb. His mother-in-law is still alive and he has admitted that after waiting for sometime in the house of his father-in-law, he returned back. It shows that the. illness of his mother-in-law was not serious. He further stated that he knew Rabindra Deb, but did not go to his house. It is rather strange. Normally if a person in a village finds gathering of people in any house of a person who is known, he goes to the house to. find out what is happening. But in this case P.W. 8 did. not do so. He admits that no microphone was used in the meeting and he heard the speech .of the-respondent standing on the road for 4/5 minutes which is unbelievable,. According to the petitioner meeting in the house of Ramizuddin Mia took place at Kadamtala at 6 P-M. P.W. 8 admits that 2 villages, namely Parchim Nabinagar and Kadamtali are situated at different direction. He further admits that from the house of his father-in law he returned to his house at around 6 P,M. so it is apparent that it was not possible on his part to attend the meeting held in the house of Ramizuddin Mia at Kadamtali. I am, therefore, unable to accept the allegations of the above two meettings based solely on the evidence of P.W. 8. 46. I am, therefore, unable to accept the allegations of the above two meettings based solely on the evidence of P.W. 8. 46. There is another allegation that on 12.12.82 at about 4P.M. there was a meeting in the new market ground presided over by R.W. 5 wherein respondent and one Nagen Deb delivered speeches regarding personal character and conduct of the petitioner. Except the statement of the petitioner and his election agent, no further evidence has been adduced to prove this fact. It is stated that in the said meeting a campaign committee was formed with R.W. 5 was the Chairman and R.W. 3 was one of the Joint Secretaries. R.W, 5 admits that such a meeting was held where 60/70 persons were present and that the meeting was addressed only by him. R,W. 5 has admitted that a campaign committee was formed as the meeting was held only for that purpose, but denied that R.W. 3 was one of the Joint Secretaries. R.W. 3 has also stated that she was not present in the meeting and she was not one of the Joint Secretaries of the said campaign committee. In absence of any independent evidence to the contrary, I hold that in the said meeting neither the respondent nor Nagen Deb addressed the meeting and that R,W. 3 was not one of the Joint Secretaries of the campaign committee. 47. It has been alleged that on 27.2.82 a women procession was organised at Bishalgarh that the election agent of the respondent handed over a read fastooa to Smti. Purnima Cnakraborty, R.W. 3 wherein there was a writing regarding personal character and conduct of the petitioner. It has also been alleged that communal slogan were shouted in the muslirn areas through which the procession passed through. Holding of procession by Ganatantrik Nari Samity has not been denied. But the respondent denied the fact of displaying of any fastoon, playcards or shouting of slogans regarding personal character and conduct of the petitioner or any communal slogans. P.W. 5 stated that he did not remember the exact wordings written in the fastoons, or play cards or slogans shouted the members of the processionists. P.W. 6 deposed that he neither saw the fastoon nor heard the slogans. P.W. 7 does not remember the slogans. P.W. 5 stated that he did not remember the exact wordings written in the fastoons, or play cards or slogans shouted the members of the processionists. P.W. 6 deposed that he neither saw the fastoon nor heard the slogans. P.W. 7 does not remember the slogans. P.W. 9 saw one fastoon delivered to Purnima, P.W. 3 by the election agent of the respondent, that too while he was walking by the road. The evidence of these witnesses is not at all reliable and consistent and cannot be believed. On the other hand R.W. 3 Purnima Chakraborty has categorically stated that the slogans shouted were neither communal nor regarding the personal character or conduct of the petitioner. She has also stated that there was no fastoon or playcards displaying any writings regarding personal character and conduct of the petitioner. I am unable to accept the evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove this allegation. 48. On 13.12.82 a police constable Late Rasbaraj Das was mur­dered and it has been alleged that in the morning of next day the respondent went to his house at Laxmibill and stated openly that Congress (I) goondas led by the petitioner committed the murder. Son of late Rasharaj Das has been examined and has stated earlier this witness is not at all trustworthy. He has stated that elderly persons from the neighbourhood were present, but none examined. Petitioner has also examined P.W. 3 and P,W. 8 to prove this fact. P.W. 3 stays at Bishalgarh. It is risky to accept his statement that from Bishalgarh he went to Laxmibill and by concident he was present when respondent visited the house. P.W. 8 who resides at a distance of 3 miles away from the house of Late constable Rasharaj Das stated that one Haren Sengupta informed him about the alleged statement of the respondent But Haren Sengupta has not been examined and as such the statement of P.W. 8 cannot be accepted. Situated thus, I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove this allegation. 49. From what has been stated above, I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove the serious charge of corrupt practice against the respondent by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. 50. In the result issues No. 2 ( first part ), 5 and 6 are decided against the petitioner. Issue No. 8 51. 49. From what has been stated above, I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove the serious charge of corrupt practice against the respondent by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. 50. In the result issues No. 2 ( first part ), 5 and 6 are decided against the petitioner. Issue No. 8 51. In view of my findings in respect of the aforesaid issues, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result the present petition is dismissed with costs which is fixed at Rs. 1,000. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the authorities as required under section 103 of the Repre sentation of the People Act. 1951.