KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking a declaration that the election of respondent 1 from Holenarasipur assembly Constituency No 133 is void, and seeking to set aside the election of respondent 1 to the Karnataka Legislative assembly from Holenarasipur Assembly constituency, and further seeking a declaration that he is duly elected from holcnarasipur Assembly Constituency No 133, and seeking a recount of the ballot papers and for excluding the votes counted in relation to polling station Nos 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 23, 34, 45, 52, 84, 94, 96, 97, 109, 117 and 125 and for scrutiny of the ballot papers in polling station Nos 23, 47, 29, 32, 33, 39, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 62, 5, 9, 35, and for excluding the votes in favour of respondent-1 in the said polling stations, and for excluding the votes cast by minors in favour of respondent-1, and for counting the entire ballot papers including the rejected ballot papers and for naming the persons found guilty of a corrupt practice after the trial ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is as under - the petitioner contested the electrick to karnataka Legislative Assembly from holenarasipur Assembly Constituency no 133 as an Independent Candidate respondent 1 contested the said election as a Janata Party candidate Respondent-2 contested the said election as a Congress party candidate Respondents-3 to 6 contested the said election as Independent candidates the calendar of events as notified was as below - (a) Last date for making nomination 8-2-1985 (b) Scrutiny 9-2-1985 (c) Withdrawal. 11-2-1985 (d) Election. 5-3-1985 (e) Counting. 6-3-1985 the voting took place on 5-3-1985. The counting took place on 6-3-1985, The total number of voters was 1,00,763. The total number of votes polled was 83,581. The number of votes rejected was 1,092. The petitioner secured 38,063 votes and respondent-1 secured 41, 230 votes. The difference between the votes secured by the petitioner and the votes secured by respondent-1 is 3,167. The respondent-1 has committed corrupt practices and acts of bribary within the meaning of Section 123 (1) (A) of the Act. Respondent-! offered many promises and help and assistance to the voters either by himself or through his agents with the sole object of inducing the voters to vole foi him in the election. The respondent-1 has committed corrupt practices and acts of bribary within the meaning of Section 123 (1) (A) of the Act. Respondent-! offered many promises and help and assistance to the voters either by himself or through his agents with the sole object of inducing the voters to vole foi him in the election. Respondent-1 was sponsored by Janata Party as a candidate lor the said election and thus the Janata Party was the agent of respondent-1. The Janata Party Official Organising Secretary Sri B. L. Shankar got printed and published with the knowledge and connivance of respondent-1 various advertisements in local leading papers like Deccan Herald, Kannada Prab- ha, Dina Tanti, on the eve of the election stating that the Janata party promised to supply rice at Rs, 21- per K. G. and would supply 10 K. g. s of rice every month to all the families belonging to weaker sections and would supply 2 pairs of sarees and blouses for Rs. 20/- every year to every woman belonging to weaker sections and would supply two pairs of dhoties and kurtas for rs. 20/- to every man belonging to weaker section every year and would arrange for loans to women entrepreneurs without security and at subsidised rates of interest. In the said advertisements it was maintained by the Janata Party that it would keep up the said promises and thus it sought the mandate of the voters. The said publication was made in English Dailies on 1-3-1985. The said newspapers were distributed in the State of karnataka including Holenarasipur Constituency free of cost. The said advertisements were published in almost all the villages in Holenarasipur Constituency on the eve of the election. At that time the market rate of rice varied from Rs. 5/- to rs. 12/- per K,g. The market value of the sarees arid blouses and dhoties and kurthas at thai time was nearly 5 times the rate at which the Janata party undertook to supply them to the people belonging to the weaker sections. The otter of loan to women entrepreneurs without security and at subsidised rale of interest was done with the sole object of inducing the women to vote for respondent-1. The said promises were made only with a view to woo the voters and thus to induce them to vole in favour of respondent. 1. The otter of loan to women entrepreneurs without security and at subsidised rale of interest was done with the sole object of inducing the women to vote for respondent-1. The said promises were made only with a view to woo the voters and thus to induce them to vole in favour of respondent. 1. ( 3 ) JANATA party published in the local newspapers in Karnataka on 3-3-1985 that the Karnataka should be governed from Karnataka and not from Delhi. Such a propaganda affected the integrity and unity of the Nation and thus violated the democratic principles and the fundamental concepts of the Constitution. Such an advertisement aroused parochial feelings among the voters and was meant to create disaffection against the Central Government. This is aiso an act of corrupt practice and an act of bribary within the meaning of Section 123 (1) (A) of the Art. The said advertisements published by the janata pan- in the said dailies are not declarations of public policy or promise. But they are advertisements seeking mandate from the voters promising them the benefits on the eve of the election. They were inserted with the intention to interfere with the rights of the voters. The said promises made in the various papers on the eve of election did not find a place in the election manifesto of the janata parly. Respondent-1 took on the election day i. e. 5-3-1985 and the day of counting i. e. 6-3-1985 the assistance of the various public servants and of the polling staff, counting staff and the polling officials, in order to better his prospects in the election. The government servants acted as though they were the agents of respondent-1. The government servants assisted respondent-1 and his agents and his people in rigging the ballot papers in various polling stations and in the casting of the votes by impersonation in favour of respondent-1. In the course of counting, they also resorted to manipulation in their attempt to better the prospects of respondent-1 in the election. The real voters were not at all allowed to exercise their voles. Casting of the votes by impersonation in favour of respondent 1 has taken place on a very large scale. In the course of counting, they also resorted to manipulation in their attempt to better the prospects of respondent-1 in the election. The real voters were not at all allowed to exercise their voles. Casting of the votes by impersonation in favour of respondent 1 has taken place on a very large scale. Respondent-1 had got posted various government servants working in Departments like Education, Revenue, K. I. D. , p. W. D. , and police in key positions in holenarasipur Constituency and induced them by his position in the Government and as the Party President for marring the prospects of the petitioner in she election. Respondent-1 by using his influence as a minister prior to his becoming the President of the Janata Party and by using his influence over the Government servants as the President of the Janata Party which was in power at the time of election, got posted several officers and officials of the Education Department, Revenue Department, K. I. D. , P. W. D. and Police Departments and other various departments in Holenarasipur Constituency. He got posted in Holenarasipur constituency only those government servants who were under his obligation and who were prepared to help him in the election. The said government servants were in one way or the other obliged to him. Respondent-1got posted also his relations, friends and officials hailing, from Holenarasipur Taluka itself in the key villages with the object of rigging the poll in the Constituency. He had so prevailed on the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, and Superintendent of Police, Hassan, in not lending any protection to the petitioner and his followers even in the event of any complaint being lodged against respondent 4 and his people by the petitioner and his people. Eventhough respondent-1 was the President of the Janata Party at the time of election, he conducted himself as though he was the supreme authority and as though he was still the Minister for P. W. D. He wielded abundant influence on the Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant engineers and Junior Engineers working in hemavati Project. They were scared to disobey respondent-1 and his son Revanna, and any of the contractors who proclaimed themselves as the followers of respondent-1. Respondent-1 was a Minister for P. W. D. before he became the President of the Janata party. They were scared to disobey respondent-1 and his son Revanna, and any of the contractors who proclaimed themselves as the followers of respondent-1. Respondent-1 was a Minister for P. W. D. before he became the President of the Janata party. He knew fully well that subordinates especially in P. W. D. Department would not be upright at all in discharging their duties impartially. Thus he knew fully well the weakness of the officials working in the p. W. D. Department. They were afraid of doing anything against him thinking that he might take action against them for the irregularities that might have been committed by them in the course of discharge of their duties. He got them appointed to such important polling stations where he had the support of the P. W. D. Contractors. He got posted officials of different communities to particular villages where a large number of voters belonged to the community of that government servant. In some cases the government servants were got posted to their native places so as to induce the voters to vote for respondent-1. The higher officials in the various Departments were made to influence their subordinates, in order to further the election prospects of respondent-1. The will of the subordinate officials was dominated by the higher officials in the various Departments who were under the obligation of respondent-1. The arrangement of the official machinery for misuse was so well arranged that even in the event of any complaint being made, no action would be taken at all. This was done at the instance of respondent-1. Thippeswamy was the Headquarters Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan. P. N. Sreenivasachari was his close friend. When Thippeswamy became the Private secretary of respondent-1 who was the Minister for P. W. D. he got the said P. N. Sreenivasachary respondent-7 (Returning officer) posted as Assistant Commissioner to Hassan Sub Division. The said sreenivasachary was appointed as the returning Officer for Holenarasipur Constituency at the instance of respondent-1 so that he could help him in the election and also in counting. One Bettegowda was the Head Clerk in taluk Development Board, Holenarasipur. He is a distant relation of respondent-1. He was transferred as Tahsildar, Channarayapatna, in 1984. Dindiganahalli Hobli of Channarayapatna taluk was tagged on to holenarasipur Constituency for the purpose of election. One Bettegowda was the Head Clerk in taluk Development Board, Holenarasipur. He is a distant relation of respondent-1. He was transferred as Tahsildar, Channarayapatna, in 1984. Dindiganahalli Hobli of Channarayapatna taluk was tagged on to holenarasipur Constituency for the purpose of election. Therefore the posting of Bettegowda as Tahsildar of Channarayapatna was meant to better the election prospects of respondent-1. Even as Assistant Registration Officer under the Registration of the electoral Rules, he managed to register the names of the persons suggested by Janata party workers as voters. Even the minors who were ineligible to become voters, were included in the voters lists. The formalities and the requirements laid down by the registration of the Electoral Rules while preparing the voters list or additional voters list, were* not followed at all. Large number of persons included in the additional voters lists were also students who were not residing in the villages and who belonged to the families of the workers of the Janata party. Respondent-1 got transferred one Abdul jabbar as Tahsildar, Holenarasipur, from k. R. Nagar. The said Abdul Jabbar was highly obliged to respondent-1. Respondent- 1 got posted the said Abdul Jabbar as Tahsildar, Holenarasipur, with the sole object of inducing Muslim voters to cast their votes in favour of respondent-1. Abdul Jabbar as tahsildar was responsible for registering and including in the additional voters's lists, large number of voters who were minors and thus ineligible. He did so in utter violation of the registration of Electoral Rules. He refused to register as voters persons belonging to minor communities, backward communities or harijan communities. One Neelakantaiah, ex-T. D. B. Member and a local leader of ambedkarnagara locality of Holenarasipur town had got 150 applications filled by persons who were entitled to become voters. But the authorities at the instance of respon- dent-1 refused to register the said 150 persons as voters though the said applications were received by the authorities. Abdul Jab- bar was incharge of the election of the holenarasipur Assembly Constituency. Respondent-1 by using his influence as ex P. W. D. Minister and by using his influence as the President of the Janata Party which was in power at the time of election, got transferred the following officials to different Hoblies in Helenarasipur Constituency, with the sole object of securing their services and help in the betterment of his election prospects. Respondent-1 by using his influence as ex P. W. D. Minister and by using his influence as the President of the Janata Party which was in power at the time of election, got transferred the following officials to different Hoblies in Helenarasipur Constituency, with the sole object of securing their services and help in the betterment of his election prospects. The names of such officials and the places to which they were transferred are as under:- (a) Sri Sathyanarayana Setty, Revenue Inspector, Halli Mysore Division. (b) Sri Rangegowda, Revenue Inspector, dindiganahalli Hobli, (c) Sri Papegowda, Revenue Inspector, halekote Hobli. (d) Sri Ganesh, Revenue Inspector, kasaba Hobli. (e) Sri Eregowda, Village Accountant of maragowdana Circle. (f) Sri Devarajegowda, Village Accountant of Beechanahalli Circle. (g) Sri Sanna Jawaregowda, Village Accountant of Savanur Circle. (h) Sri Singegowda, Village Accountant of Narayanapura Circle. (i) Sri Sambhugowda, Village Accountant of Halli Mysore Circle. (j) Sri Channegowda, Village Accountant of Chowlagala Circle. Most of the said Village Accountants are the relatives of respondent-1 and they hail from the very village to which they have been got transferred and posted. Devarajegowda, brother of the said Eregowda, is a staunch supporter of respondent-1. Lingegowda, and channegowda are the relatives of respondent-1. The said Village Accountant sambugowda who received the applications from the various persons for registration as voters, did not include their names. In collusion with the Revenue Inspectors, village Accountants and Tahsildars, nearly 7,900 voters were added as voters though they were ineligible as voters. P. S. I. Shariff was got transferred from belur to Holenarasipur by respondent-1, even after the declaration relating to the Assembly election was published. It is in contravention of the norms, rules and regulations and the Government Order that no official should be transferred till the elections were over. The said Shariff is the co-brother of Abdul Jabbar, Tahsildar of holenarasipur. This was got done by respondent-1 so that he could wield influence on Muslim voters to exercise their votes in his favour. Respondent-1 also araised feelings of the voters on the grounds of caste, creed, community and religion. H. R. Krishnamurthy, Junior Engineer working in Karnataka Irrigation Department, halli Mysere, hails from Ambedkar Nagar locality in Holenarasipur town. He was the polling agent of the candidate in polling station No. 75. He has signed as an agent. Telegrams protesting against his appointment as polling agent were sent to the Election Commission. H. R. Krishnamurthy, Junior Engineer working in Karnataka Irrigation Department, halli Mysere, hails from Ambedkar Nagar locality in Holenarasipur town. He was the polling agent of the candidate in polling station No. 75. He has signed as an agent. Telegrams protesting against his appointment as polling agent were sent to the Election Commission. One Javaraiah who was working as an assistant Executive Engineer in National high Way, Chitradurga, and who is a native of Holenarasipur town, was got transferred to Doddakuncha Sub Division in holenarasipur taluk by respondent-1. His own brother-in-law Chandrasekhar respon- dent-3 was set up by Javaraiah as an independent candidate with a view to split the Harijan votes. This was done to incite the caste and community feelings amongst the voters. One M. V. Visveswaraiah, Assistant education Officer, Holenarasipur Taluk, is a person hailing from Holenarasipur. His brother M. V. Basavaraj is a staunch supporter and election supervisor of respondent-1 at the time of election. The said visveswaraiah was working as an Inspector of Schools at Holenarasipur since 1978. He was promoted as an Head Master in November, 1984 and posted to the Government high School, Yelechaganahalli, Holenarasipur taluk. Within 2 months thereafter, one nagaraj, Assistant Education Officer, holenarasipur, was transferred in the middle of the year from Holenarasipur. The said nagaraj was compelled to give his consent to his transfer from Holenarasipur. In his place the said Visveswaraiah was got posted by respondent-1. This was done with the object of inducing Lingayat voters to vote in favour of respondent-1. This was done with a view to influence the polling officials that might be selected from the Education Department. It was done with the sole intention of bettering his prospects in the election and in order to prejudicially affect the election prospects of the petitioner. The said Visveswaraiah was transferred to Holenarasipur in violation of the Government Order prohibiting the transfers of any officials on the eve of the election. H. N. Malligowda - a native of holenarasipur - was working as a High school Teacher and he was promoted and posted as Head Master, Nyamanahalli, in the same taluk. He was posted to Nyamanahalli in order to better the election prospects of respondent-1. He was transferred at the instance of respondent-1. H. N. Malligowda - a native of holenarasipur - was working as a High school Teacher and he was promoted and posted as Head Master, Nyamanahalli, in the same taluk. He was posted to Nyamanahalli in order to better the election prospects of respondent-1. He was transferred at the instance of respondent-1. (1) K. L. Ramaswamy, (2) K. M. Kalegow- da (relation of respondent- 1), (3) B. C. Krishnappa, (4) C. K. Ramaswamy, (5) K. A. Kalappa Gowda, (6) C. J. Nanjegowda, (7) s. P. Manje Gowda who were highly obliged to respondent-1, were got appointed as poll- ing officials to the respective polling stations at the instance of respondent-1. The rigging took place in polling station Nos. 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 23, 33, 34, 45, 52, 84, 94, 96, 97, 109, 117, and 125. In not less than 25 polling stations, the polling officials supported maximum rigging and casting of votes by impersonation. More than 90 per cent votes are said to be polled in those polling stations. A chart showing where more than 90 per cent voters are said to have been cast, has been produced along with the election petition. It is in these circumstances that a large number of voters were registered as additional voters by the officials with the consent and knowledge of respondent-1. Even in the course of counting, various counting officials were got so posted by respondent -1 and placed in each table so as to help respondent -1 in all possible ways and to manipulate and increase the number of votes in favour of respondent -1. The following officials were purposely got posted as counting officials. They were all obliged to respondent -1. They are (1) Table No. 3 - sri Devarajegowda, Village Accountant - counting Assistant, and Sri P. N. Dasegowda, lecturer, Junior College; (2) Table No. 5 - rajegowda; (3) Table No. 6 - Sri devarajegowda : (4) Table No. 7 - Sri ramaswamy; (5) Table No. 8 - Javaregowda; (6) Table No. 4 - Hanumanthegowda, (7) table No. 11 - Sri C. R. Ramegowda; (8) table No. 15 - Sri Chandrasekharaiah, assistant Engineer and Govindaraju, (9) table No. 16 P. Thimmegowda, (10) Table no. 17 H. S. Puttaswamy gowda, (11) Table no. 18, Kapanigowda, Kodigowda, giddegowda, (12) Table No. 19 - Rajegowda and Kallegowda and (13) Table No. 20 - papegowda. 17 H. S. Puttaswamy gowda, (11) Table no. 18, Kapanigowda, Kodigowda, giddegowda, (12) Table No. 19 - Rajegowda and Kallegowda and (13) Table No. 20 - papegowda. In all the said tables, mistakes were committed in scrutinizing the ballot papers and in sorting the ballot papers and in counting the ballot papers and in bundling the ballot papers and also while rejecting some ballot papers. The votes cast in favour of the petitioner were counted in favour of respondent-1. Large number of votes cast in favour of the petitioner have been included in the bundles of votes of respondent -1. In the case of bundles of votes relating to the petitioner, 5 to 10 more ballot papers were included in the bundle though the bundle is supposed to contain only 50 ballot papers. In the case of the respondent -1, bundles containing less than 50 ballot papers were prepared as against the requirement of 50 ballot papers in each bundle. The counting officials did not show each ballot paper to the counting agents of the petitioner and did every thing in great haste in order to help respondent -1 and thus in their attempt to affect materially and adversely the election prospects of the petitioner. One Krishnappa who was the Executive engineer, Halli Mysore and an Executive engineer, Hemavathi Circle, went out of the way to induce the wage earners and staff members to canvass and vote for respondent -1. The said Krishnappa and the other Executive Engineer influenced many a voter through the P. W. D. Contractors and thus made then to vote in favour of respondent -1. The said Executive Engineers even provided vehicles to respondent -1 and his people at the time of election. The said two Executive engineers have enlisted nearly 450 persons as P. W. D. Contractors in their Divisions. The said Contractors belonged mostly to gowda community. They are either supporters or relations of respondent-!. Some of them actively canvassed for respondent-1 with his knowledge and consent. The official machinery wa misused. The names of some of the contractors who were enrolled as contractors on the eve of the election by the said two Executive Engineers are as under :- (1) Shivaraju, S/o Rachegowda. Contractor, Haripura (relative of respondent -1) (2) Subram, S/o Nanjegowda, - (relation of respondent -1 ). (3) Ramegowda, S/o Javarappa (Brother of respondent -1 ). The names of some of the contractors who were enrolled as contractors on the eve of the election by the said two Executive Engineers are as under :- (1) Shivaraju, S/o Rachegowda. Contractor, Haripura (relative of respondent -1) (2) Subram, S/o Nanjegowda, - (relation of respondent -1 ). (3) Ramegowda, S/o Javarappa (Brother of respondent -1 ). (4) Ningegowda alias Annaih S/o Patel rachegowda, Contractor, Harihara- pura (relation of respondent -1 ). (5) Lingegowda, S/o Gandhi (Relation of respondent -1 ). (6) H. P. Nanjegowda, S/o Haradanahalli (brother of respondent -1 ). (7) Nanjegowda, S/o Bolikale Gowda (brother-in-law of respondent -1) (8) Gangadhara, S/o Kalegowda (relation of respondent-1 ). (9) Sannegowda (relation of respondent -1 ). (10) Krishnegowda, S/o Kalegowda, kodihalli. (11) K. P. Nagaraj, Contractor (relation of respondent-1 ). (12) Huchegowda, S/o Huchegowda (relation of respondent -1 ). (13) Gangadharagowda, S/o Putta- wamygowda (relation of respondent -1 ). (14) Vishwanatha (relation of respondent -1) of Kumbenahalli. (15) Ramakrishnagowda, Contractor, anakere. (16) Shivanna, Malenahatti. (17) Krishnamurthy - Inckere, (18) Ramakrishnegowda, S/o Siddegowda, (19) Puttegowda, S/o Puttegowda. Respondent -1 who was the President of the Janata Party at the time of the election, conducted himself as though he was a minister for P. W. D. and he used to give orders and directions to grant the contract work on piece work system to persons who promised to help him in the election. Respondent - 1 and his son Revanna exercised influence over the Executive engineers and Assistant Engineers and other p. W. D. officials and secured contracts on piece work system only to those persons who promised to help respondent - 1 in the election. Respondent-1 and his son Revanna prevented the officials from giving any work to contractors who were the supporters of the petitioner. It was done so as a measure to threaten them and with the object of materially affecting the election prospects of the petitioner. One Nanjundegowda was got transferred by respondent -1 as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arsikere Sub Division which includes Holenarasipur Taluk. The said nanjundegowda has got a large number of relations in Holenarasipur Constituency. The said Nanjundegowda induced a large number of voters to exercise their votes in favour of respondent - 1. The said nanjundegowda even threatened the voters to vote for respondent - 1. He worked and canvassed for respondent with the knowledge and consent of respondent -1. The said nanjundegowda has got a large number of relations in Holenarasipur Constituency. The said Nanjundegowda induced a large number of voters to exercise their votes in favour of respondent - 1. The said nanjundegowda even threatened the voters to vote for respondent - 1. He worked and canvassed for respondent with the knowledge and consent of respondent -1. P. S. I. Jagadeesh, Channarayapatna, was recently got transferred to Channarayapatna by respondent - 1 so that he should help respondent -1 in the election. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT -1 and his relations and his workers committed several corrupt practices and acts of bribary and exercised undue influence over the voters. They imposed restraints on the will of the electorate. They resorted to devices in order to prevent the voters from exercising votes in favour of the petitioner. Respondent - 1 and his sympathisers have interfered with the free exercise of the electoral right. Respondent - 1 and his workers with his knowledge threatened the voters of the Constituency belonging to weaker sections, minorities and belonging to Harijan community and prevented them from exercising their electoral right. The various threats given to the voters by respondent -1 and his people were brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Hassan, and a copy thereof was sent to the Election commission on 28-2-1985 by the petitioner. Patel Kadalappa who is a leading contractor of Hemavati project and who belongs to the Janata Party, threatened the voters with a view to gain official favour. One mariveerappa brought such threats to the notice of the authorities. That he was threatened on 2-3-1985 at 10. 00 p. m. is also mentioned in the requisition. One Raja Setty was the petitioner's agent in polling station No. 23, Attichowdenahally. Gangadhara who is the P. W. D. Contractor and a small scale industrialist and who is actively supported by respondent -1, assaulted the petitioner's agent Raja Setty and threatened him and dragged him out of the polling station with the consent and knowledge of respondent -1. The said Gangadhara threatened the entire electorate of the village to cast the vote after showing the ballot paper to him. There was large scale of rigging even to the extent of 90 per cent in the said polling station No. 23. The said Gangadhara threatened the entire electorate of the village to cast the vote after showing the ballot paper to him. There was large scale of rigging even to the extent of 90 per cent in the said polling station No. 23. Majority of the Presiding Officers and majority of the counting officials are the natives of Holenarasipur taluk. They are one way or the other related to respondent -1. Most of them are officials working in Public works Department. They are (1) A. E. O. Ramachandra (Presiding Officer) (2) Nan- jundaswamy, Head Master, (3) Basave gowda, School Master, Basavanayakanahally (relation of Dcvegowda) and Puttaswamy gowda working in Health Department, and a native of respondent-1's village. These persons whose services were requisitioned as polling officials, supported large scale rigging with the connivance of respondent - 1. Out of 1,017 votes, 862 votes were polled in favour of respondent - 1. Voters belonging to weaker sections who are mostly weavers and Harijanas, were virtually threatened and prevented from coming to the booth and exercising the votes. Persons who were working elsewhere and persons working and residing at Bangalore and Audugodi who were weavers, were included in the additional voters' lists at the instance of Gangadhara with the object of getting their votes exercised by impersonation. The names of some voters have been repeated in the voters' lists. It is done so with a view to facilitate rigging. One Malamma Rangasetty at Sl. No. 10 of polling station No. 23 has been shown in the additional voters list as a voter at Sl. No. 903, house No. 8. The voters at SLNos. 912,913, 918, 926, 930, 945 to 956, 959 to 962, 969 to 979, 988 to 994, 1000, 1001, 1013 to 1023 are not at all the residents of Atti Chowdenahally. Gangadhara who belongs to weaver community manoenuredto get the names of the said persons entered in the voters' list though they had left the village long back. Their votes were got exercised in favour of respondent -1 by impersonation. The officials cooperated with the said Gangadhar in order to further the election prospects of respon- dent-1. Nearly 215 votes were enrolled and were included in the voters' list as extra votes in this polling station. In polling station No. 29, Chakanahally, (1) Kalegowda, (2) Motegowda and (3) Patel swamy Gowda are the leaders of the Janata party. The officials cooperated with the said Gangadhar in order to further the election prospects of respon- dent-1. Nearly 215 votes were enrolled and were included in the voters' list as extra votes in this polling station. In polling station No. 29, Chakanahally, (1) Kalegowda, (2) Motegowda and (3) Patel swamy Gowda are the leaders of the Janata party. They with the consent of respondent - 1 with a view to rigging the poll and one Patel swamy Gowda's son who is a contractor and close to relation -1, threatened and sent out of the booth the petitioner's polling agent ramegowda. They resorted to large scale rigging. The voters belonging to minor communities were threatened not to vote for the petitioner. The petitioner's agent Nataraj of Malali village was not allowed to the polling station by Shivaraj who is a contractor and relation of respondent - 1. The said Shivaraj threatened Nataraj at Hariharapura polling station No. 31. The said Shivaraj got most of the votes of minor community people exercised by proxy before the arrival of the real voters. Thus there was large scale rigging in this booth. Ramegowda (respondent-1's brother) who is a contractor and Subbaramu who is also a contractor and Ningegowda @ hnnaiah who is also a contractor, were all under the obligation of respondent -1 and they not only prevented the electorate from voting but also managed to vote by impersonation with the knowledge of respondent 1. In polling station No. 32 Doddakunche, (1) P. W. D. Contractor Shri Haravegowda, (2) Rangaswamy, (3) Ramegowda and (4) thammappa, threatened the voters belonging to Harijan communities and weaker sections and also voters belonging to Harijan community not to go to the booth and to exercise their votes. They were threatened to show the ballot papers to the Janata agent before putting it in the box. The petitioner's agent Appanria, son of subbegowda, was threatened some two days prior to the polling by the Janata Party workers. At the instance of the said persons, they pelted stones at his house and damaged his house. In Doddakuncha village, they went to Harijan colony and removed the tape and damaged the doors, and roofs of the house and caused injuries even to persons. One of the injured persons was admitted to the Hospital and criminal case in that connection is pending. There was large scale rigging in Doddakuncha village. In Doddakuncha village, they went to Harijan colony and removed the tape and damaged the doors, and roofs of the house and caused injuries even to persons. One of the injured persons was admitted to the Hospital and criminal case in that connection is pending. There was large scale rigging in Doddakuncha village. In collusion with the Village Accountant and the revenue Inspector and the Tahsildar, persons who are not residents of Doddakuncha and minor children of the people belonging to Janata party workers were included in the revised voters' list at the instance of respondent -1. One such incident relates to polling station No. 32, voter No. 607, House No. 140. In fact the said house has been allotted to one Clerk of P. W. D. Office and it is a departmental quarter. The same house No. 140 is shown in the additional voters list at SI. No. 963. Persons belonging to different communities of the same age group are shown as voters. They are not the residents of the village. They are all minors and ineligible voters. One Javara Mastri shown as Voter no. 54 of the same village though dead was continued in the voters' list and his vote has been exercised by impersonation by Janata party workers. In polling station No. 33 Kodihally, several contractors viz. , (1) Huchegowda, S/o huchegowda, (2) K. P. Nagaraj (contractor and P. L. D. Bank President) and (3) K. P. Gangadhara, contractor, (4) Krishnegowda, contractor, (5) Rajegowda, contractor, and many daily wage earners in Hemavathi project who are the natives of that village, threatened the Harijan voters and prevented them from going to the poll and directed some voters to show the ballot papers to them before putting the same in the box. Ramegowda, Advocate-Booth supervisor of the petitioner was threatened and dragged out of the booth and he was not permitted to visit the polling station. Notwithstanding his complaint made in this connection, the police did not take any action in the matter. The Home Guard who had been posed there did not prevent the voters being threatened at all. There was large scale rigging at the instance of respondent-1. Notwithstanding his complaint made in this connection, the police did not take any action in the matter. The Home Guard who had been posed there did not prevent the voters being threatened at all. There was large scale rigging at the instance of respondent-1. In polling station No. 39 Beechanahally, (1) contractor Shivanna, (2) V. P. Member raju and (3) Agriculturist Rudrappa who are all Janata workers threatened the petitioner's polling agent Venkatasubbaiah and threatened him not to object to the votes being cast by impersonation. Only a few voters were allowed to enter the polling station and such persons by putting their different fingers obtained the ballot papers and exercised votes by impersonation. The real voters were not allowed to enter the booth to cast the votes alleging that they had no vote at all or on the ground that their votes had already been cast. Even any police officials were not posted at this polling booth. There was none to whom the complaint could be lodged. Harijan voters were threatened and put to fear and they were not allowed to cast their votes freely. Polling station No. 45 is the native village of respondent -1. The petitioner's polling agent Javaregowda was kidnapped in the early morning in a car on the election day i. e. 5-3-1985. Respondent -1's brother Basave- gowda and the respondent -1's cousin H. D. Nanjegowda and respondent -1's brother-in- law Ningegowda and Gangadhara gowda who were contractors, threatened the voters and did not allow them to exercise their votes freely. One Nanjegowda who is a native of the same village was posted as polling officer to that village. There was no police man posted in this polling station in spite of protests and requests made in this behalf by the petitioner. The voters were threatened to exercise their votes in favour of respondent -1. One H. D. Shamanna who is a Junior engineer in Halekote was the Presiding Officer in this booth and he supported respondent -1. In Polling Station No. 48, one p. W. D. Contractor V. Rangegowda and patel Marigowda of Nyamanahalli village joined together an threatened the petitioner's polling agent Thimmegowda son of Male Gowda and did not even permit him to raise objections, In fact voters were not allowed to exercise their votes at all. B. C. Shallappa who was the Assistant Engineer of halekote was the Presiding Officer. B. C. Shallappa who was the Assistant Engineer of halekote was the Presiding Officer. The said Shallappa supported large scale rigging. On 4-3-1985 i. e. a day previous to the election day, the Janata party workers at the instance of and with the knowledge of respondent -1 and in furtherance of the common object scared the voters and prevented the people from going to the polling station and assaulted the voters and behaved unruly towards the voters and damaged the petitioner's vehicles and assaulted his voters also. In furtherance of their design to threaten the voters, they assaulted several people in general and complaint to the police has been given in that connection. In polling station No. 49 Hanumanahally, one C. J. Nanjegowda, Assistant Engineer, halli Mysore, was posted as Presiding Officer. He is close to respondent -1 and obliged to respondent -1. Lakkegowda who is a V. P. Chairman and Contractor is a supporter, follower and relation of respondent - 1. (1) Respondent -1's brother-in-law ajjegowda (2) Sannegowda Vice Chairman and (3) Sethigowda joined hands and threatened the voters belonging to minor communities like Achars, Harijans and they were not allowed to cast their votes. The said voters were put under great pressure and they were scared with danger to their life and property if they voted for the petitioner. The said persons also threatened the voters to show the ballot papers after marking it, to their agent. A large scale rigging has taken place in this booth at the instance of respondent -1 and his supporters. In polling station No. 50 Kamasandra, one S. P. Manjegowda, Assistant Engineer, no. 5 Halli Mysore - Sub Division was posted as Presiding Officer. He was obliged to respondent -1. Mudalagirigowda (President of Service Co-operative Society) and his son and Range Gowda who is a contractor, joined hands and threatened the Harijan voters and prevented the Harijan voters from exercising their votes. Voters were not allowed to exercise their votes freely. In polling station No. 52 Paduvalahippe where respondent -1 owns property, respondent-1 has got his vote in that place. The persons who are not at all residing in that village and also persons who are students less than 18 years, were all included in the voters list. In House No. 9 at Paduvalahippe, persons mostly who were not residents and who are underaged are shown as voters in the voters list. The persons who are not at all residing in that village and also persons who are students less than 18 years, were all included in the voters list. In House No. 9 at Paduvalahippe, persons mostly who were not residents and who are underaged are shown as voters in the voters list. Similar is the case with the persons shown as voters in House No. 10/1. The presiding Officer P. M. Shashidhara and the polling officer Balakrishnegowda, the official working in the Horticultural Department, are close to respondent-1. They supported the Janata agents and encouraged rigging in collusion with Hanumanthegowda and respondent -1's son Revanna and Eregowda. The voters were threatened and prevented from entering the booth. Large number of votes and even the votes of dead persons and even the votes of the persons wrongly shown in the voters list were exercised by impersonation. This would be clear if the counterfoils are verified. Notwithstanding the request made earlier, no police protection was available to them. The petitioner's supporters were threatened with letters and this was resorted to with a view to demoralise the people inclined in favour of the petitioner. This has materially affected the election prospects of the petitioner. Threatening letters were written to the petitioner and his supporters from the date of nomination till the date of election. One S. N. Nanjappa, Holenarasipur, ex-Vice President, T. D. B. Holenarasipur, was threatened by one such letter. In polling station No. 62 Marayanayakana halli, (1) P. W. D. Contractor Nanjegowda, (2) contractor Naganna, (3) Thimmegowda, edigarahosur and (4) Rangegowda son of kariyappa, Edigarahosur, prevented the voters belonging to Jogi community and harijan community and Akkasaliga community from exercising the votes. Their votes were exercised by Janata workers by impersonation. Manjegowda, aged hardly 30 years and who is well disposed to respondent-1 has exercised most of the votes by impersonation in this booth, in order to better the prospects of respondent - 1. Basappa and Annaiah working in Lift Irrigation Scheme also worked for respondent-1 and encouraged rigging. Basappa and Annaiah who work on channels, distribute water to achakatdars. These two persons were set up by respondent -1 and Janata workers. They threatened the ryot voters that if they did not vote for respondent -1, the water would not be given to them at all. Basappa and Annaiah who work on channels, distribute water to achakatdars. These two persons were set up by respondent -1 and Janata workers. They threatened the ryot voters that if they did not vote for respondent -1, the water would not be given to them at all. This threat made the electorate to yield to the dictates of the said two persons and the followers of respondent -1. The will of the voters was dominated and subjected to undue influence. Nearly 85 and odd votes of the ineligible voters on account of minority, have been exercised by impersonation in this booth. In polling station No. 5, Doddakarade village, (1) B. C. Krishnappa, Junior Engineer, no. 6 Sub Division, Halli Mysore, was posted as the Presiding Officer. He was under the obligation of respondent -1. Respondent -1 got him transferred to Halli Mysore Division. (1) Ningappa, (2) Shivalingappa, (3) Dhar- manna and (4) Manjunath who were all janata party workers, arranged for food on 4-3-1985 to all the polling officials. It was done with a view to get the help of the polling officials. The said persons threatened the voters not to exercise their votes for the petitioner. They were induced to vote only for respondent -1. In the Course of morning food, promise was taken from the polling staff to support respondent -1 during the polling. The petitioner's agent Yoganna was beaten in the early morning of 5-3-1985. When he went to give the complaint, it was not received. The Janata workers have exercised most of the votes by impersonation in this polling booth. In polling station No. 9, Yeliyur, one K. A. Kalappa Gowda, a relation of respondent -1, was posted as Presiding Officer. He allowed chairman Rangappa and Chandru who are janata Leaders, to exercise large number of votes by impersonation. There was no verification of the voters at all. The same person was allowed to vote 10 or 15 times in this booth. The real voters who came to the booth after 12 noon, were sent out on the plea that their votes had already been exercised. The petitioner's agent Manjanna was not permitted to raise objections. The petitioner's agent Manjanna was necked out of the polling station. The polling staff and the Presiding Officer helped respondent. A large scale rigging was resorted to in this polling station. The petitioner's agent Manjanna was not permitted to raise objections. The petitioner's agent Manjanna was necked out of the polling station. The polling staff and the Presiding Officer helped respondent. A large scale rigging was resorted to in this polling station. In polling station No. 35-Dindgenahalli, large scale rigging was resorted to by respondent - 1 and his people with the support of the polling staff. In this polling station, 9 P. W. D. Contractors were newly enlisted as contractors at the instance of respondent-1. The said contractors wooed the voters belonging to Christian community and harijan community and assaulted Devaraja of Chennapura village and Suresh of anekere village. The petitioner's polling agent was thrown out from the polling station. When the petitioner's agents went to give police complaint, the mobile squad received it and did not take any action. They did not give any acknowledgment also for having received the complaint. The weekly newspaper Lankesh Patrika dated 24th March, 1985, which has got a large circulation, has published the manner and the method resorted to by respondent -1 and his people during the time of election and from the start it has also shown as to how respondent -1 and his people have got appointed the polling staff. It also shows as to how the voters belonging to minor communities were threatened. It also depicts the corrupt practices resorted to by respondent - 1 and his people. ( 5 ) IN Kalenahalli village, respondent-1's supporters at the time of election, attacked the petitioner at about 9-00 p. m. and damaged his car. A complaint was given in this connection. F. I. R. has been sent to the court. Every follower of the petitioner was threatened by respondent -1 and his people. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT -1 and his supporters and canvassers got printed in various newspapers defamatory statements regarding the petitioner, in order to assassinate the character of the petitioner and in order to bring down the petitioner in the estimate of the public. The said allegations got published in the newspapers and by pamphlets are absolutely false. False statements assassinating the character of the petitioner were got printed in various newspapers and by pamphlets under the name of K. P. Nagaraj. The said allegations got published in the newspapers and by pamphlets are absolutely false. False statements assassinating the character of the petitioner were got printed in various newspapers and by pamphlets under the name of K. P. Nagaraj. The said newspapers and pamphlets which had published false materials assassinating the character of the petitioner, were distributed in various villages and were read out by respondent -1 and his supporters in various villages with the object of marring the electoral prospects of the petitioner. One K. P. Nagaraj got published false and defamatory statements concerning the petitioner in 'janata madhyama' paper on 5-2-1985 at the instance of respondent -1. This was done with a view to mislead the electorate and with the object of affecting the election prospects of the petitioner. Respondent-1 himself knew that the materials got published were false. Respondent-1 and his supporters got distributed the said newspapers and pamphlets in various villages. One of the allegations made that the petitioner wanted to become a Minister, is only a surmise of respondent -1. The petitioner was not even a congress candidate. The question of the petitioner becoming a Minister did not arise at all. The petitioner has not taken any commission by sale of agency granted in the name of his son. He has not taken any tank bed land. He has not at all exchanged bad quality rice in place of the paddy given to him for milling. The petitioner never influenced any member of the Tribunal for obtaining any favourable orders in the land reforms case. It is the respondent -1 that is guilty of lapses. The utterances of respondent -1 at Thorekadnahalli in sathanur Constituency while giving reasons for his resignation, were absolutely misleading and meant to bring down the petitioner in the estimation of the public. The said utterances were resorted to by respondent -1 with a view to affect the electoral prospects of the petitioner. The news item in 'samyukta Karnataka' daily dated 19-3-1985 got published by respondent-1 and his supporters contains erroneous statements regarding the petitioner. Respondent -1 and his people with the knowledge of respondent -1 supplied free liquor and food and money to the voters. The news item in 'samyukta Karnataka' daily dated 19-3-1985 got published by respondent-1 and his supporters contains erroneous statements regarding the petitioner. Respondent -1 and his people with the knowledge of respondent -1 supplied free liquor and food and money to the voters. In Doddakarade Polling Station No. 5 and Sathenahalli polling station No. 3 and gyarahalli Polling Station No. 7, and Polling station No. 2 Dindiganahalli, and Polling station No. 9 Yeliyur and Polling Station No. 11 Dindiganahalli, liquor was distributed freely from 25-2-1985 to 4-3-1985 by respon- dent-l's son Revanna and the P. W. D. contractors. The persons who distributed the liquor, food and money on behalf of respondent -1 are (1) R. Lingegowda, (2) Manjegowda, (3) Shivalingappa, (4) Krishne- gowda and (5) Viswanath and others. One person by name Raja of Varanahalli, (2) nanjundappa of Yeliyur, (3) Yoganna of doddakarade complained about it to the police and no action has been taken. Respondent -1 and his people deliberately and consciously arranged for free conveyance of the voters on the date of polling and had engaged not less than 70 vehicles of all types for conveyance of the voters. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT-1 and his people are guilty of various corrupt practices and acts of bribary some of which are as below :- (1) The election was not held freely and lairly. The official machinery was used by respondent-1 and his workers for bettering the electoral prospects of respondent -1. (2) the Returning Officer-respondent-7 is quite close to respondent-1 and a friend of Thip- peswamy the Personal Secretary to respondent-1 and who was working as Headquarters Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, hassan. (3) The Village Accountants, revenue Inspectors, Tahsildars, P. S. I. Holenarasipur, Channarayapatna, Tahsildar, holenarasipur and the various Junior Engineers, assistant Engineers, Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers working in Hemavati project and many a government servant and Teachers, were got transferred to the various villages of holenarasipur so that they could influence the voters to vote in favour of respondent-1. The entire official machinary was misused for bettering the electoral prospects of respondent-1 (4) Even the counting staff which was favourable to respondent 1 was got posted. (5) The Village Accountants used to harass the agriculturists in the Constituency by effecting mutations and changes in the pahanies. The highhandedness of the village Accountants was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities but in vain. (5) The Village Accountants used to harass the agriculturists in the Constituency by effecting mutations and changes in the pahanies. The highhandedness of the village Accountants was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities but in vain. All the polling officials and the entire counting staff were hostile to the petitioner and quite favourable to respondent -1. The counting of the votes was not proper and the bundling of the votes was also not proper. (6) Though respondent -1 has not secured majority, he was wrongly declared by the returning Officer as having been duly returned. (7) The Returning Officer was not sitting in the counting hall at all. The counting agents of the petitioner were not allowed to sit near the Returning Officer or the counting Officials. They could not supervise the counting at all. The counting was done in great haste. The votes cast in favour of the petitioner were counted in favour of respondent-1. Many a vote cast in favour of the petitioner was wrongly rejected. Many a vote cast in favour of respondent-1 though liable to be rejected, was counted in favour of respondent-1. In bundling of ballot papers relating to the petitioner, more than 50 ballot papers were put in the bundle as against 50. In bundling of ballot papers were put in the bundles. (8) The counting agents of the petitioner were not allowed even to sit and the accommodation was highly insufficient. Contrary to the facts, the Returning Officer has maintained writing as though the counting agents of the petitioner were sitting at the respective tables. The counting hall was extremely congested and insufficient. 20 tables had been arranged in that small hall. The tables were arranged in violation of the rules. The counting agents of the petitioner were not allowed to watch and observe and supervise the counting properly at all the tables. The counting agents were not allowed to inspect the ballot boxes before opening the same. The counting agents of the petitioner were not allowed to watch, inspect and note down the serial numbers of the ballot papers which were either illegally rejected or illegally counted. Requests of the counting agents of the petitioner were turned down on the ground that the counting staff had been directed not to allow any counting agents or candidates to note down the serial numbers of the ballot papers. Requests of the counting agents of the petitioner were turned down on the ground that the counting staff had been directed not to allow any counting agents or candidates to note down the serial numbers of the ballot papers. There are lots of discrepancies in the ballot paper account maintained by the Returning Officer. The counting has been done in contravention of the Act and the Rules. Innumerable mistakes are committed in the course of counting. The mistakes are also committed in writing accounts in form No. 16 Parts I and II and form No. 20. They do not tally with each other. Form No. 16, Parts I and II were not given to the petitioner though the petitioner requested for them. An Endorsement has been issued to the petitioner stating that he may obtain the same from the office of the deputy Commissioner. It was done so with a view to harass the petitioner. On account of this, the petitioner has not placed the complete figures and the difference in form No. 16, Parts I and II and form No. 20. ( 8 ) MORE than 90 per cent votes are exercised in polling station Nos. 3, 4, 7,10,11, 23, 33, 34, 45, 52, 84, 94, 96, 91, 109,117 and 125. When more than 90 per cent votes in the said polling stations were found to have been exercised, the petitioner's counting agents in the course of counting itself requested the returning officer to set apart those votes as it was the direction issued by the Election commissioner. Instead of setting apart the votes in the said polling stations, they were counted in favour of respondent- 1. If these votes are excluded from the total votes, the petitioner would get majority of the votes and thus he is entitled to be declared as duly elected. The Returning Officer and counting officials have violated the directions issued by the Election Commissioner. There has been large scale rigging in the said polling stations and large number of votes have been cast by impersonation by individuals. Marks have been put on the ballot papers systematically and an examination of the ballot papers and the counterfoils would show the same. There has been large scale rigging in the said polling stations and large number of votes have been cast by impersonation by individuals. Marks have been put on the ballot papers systematically and an examination of the ballot papers and the counterfoils would show the same. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT-1 with the connivance of his supporters, managed to get included thousands of persons as additional voters in holenarasipur Assembly Constituency though the said persons were not eligible to be registered as voters. The petitioner learns that respondent -1 got the applications filed by the said persons for being enrolled as additional voters some where in the third week of January, 1985. On coming to know that thousands of applications had been got filed by respondent-1 and his supporters for entering the names in the additional voters' lists, the petitioner and his workers got filed applications for enrolment as voters by some few persons who had attained majority and who were eligible to become voters. But the authorities concerned did not include the names of the said few persons who had filed the applications for enrolment. As per Rules 10, 11 and 12, there must be publication of the electoral roll draft and after publication and notice to the public and after inspection by the public and after giving an opportunity to the public to lodge objections within a period of 30 days or shorter period that may be fixed by the Election Commission which must be not less than 15 days, additional voters' lists will have to be prepared. In this case, no such things have been followed. The petitioner approached the Tahsildar and the assistant Commissioner for obtaining copies of the additional voters lists if any. But he was informed there were no such additional lists. The petitioner came to know from the town Municipal Council, Holenarasipur and the Village Panchayats in Holenarasipur constituencies that there was no publication of the additional voters' lists. There has been a deliberate suppression of the additional lists of voters at the instance of respondent-1. Even people living outside Holenarasipur taluk and who are residents of Adugodi and bangalore, have been included as voters in the additional lists of voters of Holenarasipur constituency. The names of those people are "division No. 23 - Attichowdenahalli (1) Malamma Rangisetty (Sl. No. 903), (2) Chandregowda (Sl. Even people living outside Holenarasipur taluk and who are residents of Adugodi and bangalore, have been included as voters in the additional lists of voters of Holenarasipur constituency. The names of those people are "division No. 23 - Attichowdenahalli (1) Malamma Rangisetty (Sl. No. 903), (2) Chandregowda (Sl. No. 912), (3) Shamanna Bommanna (913), (4) Shivalingegowda Bommegowda (918), (5) Subbaiah (926) (6) Anantharamaiah and several others. " a list showing the names of the minors who have been entered as voters and a list of the persons who are not eligible to be registered as voters and who have been registered as voters and whose votes have been cast by impersonation is produced at annexure R. ( 10 ) IN fact the petitioner has received the majority of the valid votes. This would be revealed if the ballot papers and the counter foils are rescrutinised and if a recount is made. Apart from this, if the votes secured by respondent-1 by corrupt practices are excluded, the petitioner would get majority of the valid votes. ( 11 ) SEVERAL irregularities and illegalities have taken place at the time of polling and counting. The election of respondent-1 as can be seen from the above narration, is vitiated and is liable to be struck down as void and is liable to be set aside. The petitioner is entitled to the declaration that he has secured a majority of the valid votes and is thus entitled to be declared as having been duly elected after recount and after rescrutiny of the ballot paper. Hence the present petition has been filed for seeking the said reliefs. ( 12 ) RESPONDENTS - 32, 4, 5 and 6 have remained absent and set exparte. ( 13 ) RESPONDENT-3 has not filed his written statement. ( 14 ) RESPONDENT-1 by his written statement has denied all the petition allegations and has resisted the petition filed by the petitioner on various grounds. ( 15 ) RESPONDENT-7 also has filed his written statement denying all the allegations made by the petitioner and has resisted the petition filed by the petitioner. ( 16 ) THE following issues have been set down for trial :- " (1) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 has committed corrupt practices and has indulged in bribery within the meaning of Section 123 (1) (A) of the Representation of the Peoples Act ? ( 16 ) THE following issues have been set down for trial :- " (1) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 has committed corrupt practices and has indulged in bribery within the meaning of Section 123 (1) (A) of the Representation of the Peoples Act ? (2) Does the petitioner prove that the janata party with the knowledge, connivance and consent of respondent-1 "got published in Deccan Herald and other English papers dated 1- 3-1985 and the vernacular papers round about that time that the Janata party would sell rice at Rs. 21- per K. G. as against the market price of Rs. 5/- to rs. 10/- per K. G. and that 10 K. Gs. of rice every month at the said rate would be supplied to each family of the weaker sections and that two pairs of sarees and blouses would be supplied to every woman of weaker sections each year for Rs. 20/- as against the price of more than Rs. 100/- and that two pairs of dhotis and kurta would be supplied to every man of weaker sections for Rs. 20/- as against the price of more than Rs. 100/- and that the loans to the women entrepreneurs would be made available without security and at subsidised interest rate and that they would keep up the promise and sought the mandate on this count and that the said publications were made with a view to induce the voters to cast the votes in favour of the Janata and that such publication amounted to a corrupt practice within the meaning of the act? (3) Does the petitioner prove that the janata party with the consent, connivance and knowledge of respondent-1 got published in all the papers on the eve of "of the election that Karnataka should be governed from karnataka and not from Delhi and that such a publication offended the integrity and unity of the Country and brought about hatred between classes of citizens of India and that the said publication amounts to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (1) (A) of the Act? (4) Does the petitioner prove that the polling staff and the counting staff and the Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer acted as the agents of respondent-1 on the date of polling and on the date of counting and assisted him in rigging the ballot papers in various polling stations and assisted him in the manipulation of votes in the course of counting ? (5) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 by exercising his influence as a minister got several officials of Education Department, Public works Department and Revenue department transferred and got some of them promoted and posted specifically in Holenarasipur Constituency on or about the eve of the Assembly election held in 1985 ? (6) Does the petitioner prove that he got his many relatives, officials and officers posted in Holenarasipur taluk and had got the officials of holenarasipur taluk in key villages where there were large number of votes with the object of rigging the poll in that Constituency ? (7) Does the petitioner prove that respondent -1 had prevailed on the deputy Commissioner, Hassan, and superintendent of Police, Hassan, not to lend protection to the petitioner and his people even in case a complaint was made by them? (8) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 using his authority while he was a Minister for P. W. D. influenced and induced the Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer of Hemavati Project and all Junior engineers and Assistant Engineers and that the said officials were scared to disobey him or his son Revanna and many of the contractors who proclaimed themselves as the followers of respondent -1, and that he got posted only such persons like the superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer and the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineers to his constituency in whom he had utmost confidence and who he knew would not go against him ? (9) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 had got posted in some places only persons belonging to a particular community in which the majority of the population belonged to that community? (9) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 had got posted in some places only persons belonging to a particular community in which the majority of the population belonged to that community? " (10) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 and his Private secretary Thippeswamy got posted srinivasachari as the Assistant Commissioner to Hassan Sub Division on the eve of the election and that the said Srinivasachari had worked as tahsildar, Holenarasipur taluk for some time before and that the said srinivasachari was the Returning Officer for Holenarasipur Constituency and that the said Srinivasachari helped respondent -1 in the course of counting ? (11) Does the petitioner prove that one bettegowda who is a distant relative of respondent-1 was working as a Clerk in the Taluk Development Board, holenarasipur , and that he was transferred as Tahsildar, Channarayapatna, in 1984 and as Assistant Registration officer under Registration of Electoral Rules and that he managed to register most of the names given by the Janata party workers which included large majority of minors and ineligible voters, without complying with the formalities and that he prepared additional list of voters without proper publication and in violation of the rules and law? (12) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 and his party people got a large number of minors and ineligible persons registered as voters on the eve of the election by influencing the officials concerned ? (13) Does the petitioner prove that Abdul jabbar was got transferred as Tahsildar, Holenarasipur, by respondent-1 and his people with a view to woo the muslim voters and the said Abdul Jab- bar prepared an additional list of voters including the names given by the Janata party workers though majority of them wee minors and ineligible and that the said Abdul Jab- bar refused to register the names of the persons given by the petitioner though they were eligible voters ? (14) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 as mentioned in Para vi (5) got transferred the various officials to different hoblies in No. 133 holenarasipur Constituency and that the persons got transferred by respondent-1 helped respondent-1 in the course of polling and in the course of counting ? (14) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 as mentioned in Para vi (5) got transferred the various officials to different hoblies in No. 133 holenarasipur Constituency and that the persons got transferred by respondent-1 helped respondent-1 in the course of polling and in the course of counting ? (15) Does the petitioner prove as mentioned in para VI (6) that respondent- 1 got transferred various Village accountants to various villages in holenarasipur Constituency with the object of securing their help in the course of the election and that some of the said persons are his relatives ? (16) Does the petitioner prove as mentioned in para Vl (6) that in collusion with the Revenue Inspectors, Village accountants and Tahsildars, 7,900 were added as voters and that most of them are ineligible and not residing in those respective villages ? (17) Does the petitioner prove that one shariff, Sub-Inspector of Police, was got transferred by respondent-1 and his people to Holenarasipur even after the declaration of the date for holding the Assembly election and that it was done in violation and contravention of the orders concerned and that the said Shariff is the co-brother of the tahsildar, Holenarasipur, and that the said Shariff was got posted to holenarasipur in order to woo the muslim voters to exercise their votes in favour of respondent-1 ? (18) Does the petitioner prove that respondent -1 appealed to the feelings of the voters on the ground of caste, community, and religion ? (19) Does the petitioner prove that H. R. Krishna Murthy, J. E. , was the counting agent of respondent-1 in polling station No. 75 ? (20) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 got transferred javaraiah, Assistant Executive Engineer, to Holenarasipur taluk, Dod- dakuncha Sub Division, and that the said Javaraiah's brother- in-law ramachandra was set up to contest the Assembly election and that it was done by respondent-1 with the help of javaraiah in order to split the Harijan voters ? (20) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 got transferred javaraiah, Assistant Executive Engineer, to Holenarasipur taluk, Dod- dakuncha Sub Division, and that the said Javaraiah's brother- in-law ramachandra was set up to contest the Assembly election and that it was done by respondent-1 with the help of javaraiah in order to split the Harijan voters ? (21) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 got promoted M. V. Vis- veswaraiah A. E. G. as Head Master, government High School, yelechagenahalli in Holenarasipur taluk and that within two months thereafter one Nagaraj, A. E. O. was disturbed in the middle of the year by forcing him to consent to the transfer and that respondent-1 got posted m. V. Visveswaraiah in his place with an intention to induce the Lingayat voters and to exercise their votes in favour of respondent-1 and also with a view to influence the polling staff that may be selected from the officials of the Education Department ? (22) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 got transferred one h. N. Maligowda as Head Master, nyamanahalli in Holenarasipur taluk with a view to secure his help in the election and the said Maligowda helped respondent-1 in the election ? (23) Does the petitioner prove as urged in para VI (12) of the petition that K. K. Ramaswamy, K. A. Kalappagowda (relative of respondent-1) and B. C. Krishnappa, C. K. Ramaswamy, K. A. Kalappa Gowda, C. J. Nanje Gowda, s. P. Manje Gowda were got appointed by respondent-1 as the presiding Officers in his attempt to get their assistance and he got them appointed to the respective polling stations in order to see that they permitted rigging to a large extent and that the rigging took place in those polling stations where they had been posted as members of the polling staff ? (24) Does the petitioner prove that rigging and voting by impersonation took place on a large scale in polling station Nos. 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 23, 33, 34, 45, 52, 84, 94,96, 97,109,117 and 125 ? (25) Does the petitioner prove that in more than 25 polling stations, respondent-1 by taking the assistance of the polling staff manipulated the rigging of votes and got the votes cast by impersonation to the extent of more than 90 per cent in his favour ? (25) Does the petitioner prove that in more than 25 polling stations, respondent-1 by taking the assistance of the polling staff manipulated the rigging of votes and got the votes cast by impersonation to the extent of more than 90 per cent in his favour ? (26) Does the petitioner prove that the officials mentioned in para VI (13) were got posted as members of the counting staff by respondent-1 and the said officials helped respondent-1 in the course of counting and purposely counted the votes marked in favour of the petitioner in favour of respondent 1 and treated many a valid vote marked in favour of the petitioner as invalid and treated many an invalid vote marked in favour of respondent - 1 as valid and that many a vote marked in favour of the petitioner was treated as votes in favour of respondent-1? (27) Does the petitioner prove that one krishnappa, Executive Engineer, halli Mysore and the Executive Engineer, Hemavathi Circle, went out of the way to induce the wage earners, staff and the voters through contractors, by providing vehicles etc. , and that these two Executive Engineers encouraged 450 contractors mostly gowdas-supporters of respondent-1 and his relatives to register as contractors in Hemavathi Circle and that they actively supported respondent-1 with his consent and knowledge and the official machinery was misused ? (28) Does the petitioner prove that the contractors mentioned in para VI (14) were got registered as contractors by respondent-1 with the help of Executive Engineers and the Engineering staff and that the said contractors helped respondent-1 in the course of the election ? (29) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 after he had become the minister got transferred one Nanjun- degowda, Deputy Superintendent of police, to Arsikere Sub Division, which includes Holenarasipur taluk and that the said Deputy Superintendent of Police Nanjundegowda has got many relations in Holenarasipur Constituency and thus he induced voters by all means to exercise votes in favour of respondent-1 and that he virtually worked for respondent-1 with his knowledge and that one jagadeesh, Sub Inspector of Police, was got transferred to Channarayapat- na and he helped respondent-1 at the time of the election ? (30) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 and his agents in order to further respondent-1's election prospects with his consent and knowledge threatened a large number of voters belonging to weaker sections and the minorities group with the object of preventing them from exercising their electoral right ? (31) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 47 Halekote, one patel Kadalappa belonging to Janata party is a leading contractor of hemavati project and that he threatened many a voter at the instance of respondent-1? (32) Does the petitioner prove that Gangadhara who is a P. W. D. contractor and also a small scale industrialist supported by respondent -1 dragged the petitioner's agent Rajasetty from the polling station and held out threats to the entire voters of the village and thus there was no free exercise of votes? (33) Does the petitioner prove that large number of Presiding Officers and other officials connected with the polling and counting are natives of holenarasipur taluk and are in one way or the other related to respondent-1 and that they are all officials of the P. W. D. Department ? (34) Does the petitioner prove that ramachandra A. E. O. and Nanjundaswamy, Head Master, and puttaswamy Gowda working in Health department are the natives of the very village of respondent-1 and they were got appointed as members of the polling staff with the knowledge and consent of respondent-1 and that large scale rigging took place and that out of 1017 votes, 862 votes were polled in favour of respondent-1 and that the voters belonging to weaker sections like weavers and Harijans were virtuallyprevented from exercising their votes ? (35) Does the petitioner prove that many persons who were working outside holenarasipur taluk and many persons working in Bangalore and audugodi and many weavers working at Bangalore and Audugodi were included in the additional voters' list at the instance of one Gangadhar and respondent -1 with the object of securing votes by impersonation ? (36) Does the petitioner prove that there have been repetition of the names in the voters list ? (37) Does the petitioner prove that at the instance of respondent-1 and his people, the votes of the persons who had left the villages long before, were exercised by impersonation ? (36) Does the petitioner prove that there have been repetition of the names in the voters list ? (37) Does the petitioner prove that at the instance of respondent-1 and his people, the votes of the persons who had left the villages long before, were exercised by impersonation ? (38) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 29, Chakanahally, kalegowda, Motegowda and Patel swamy Gowda (Leaders of Janata party) with the object of rigging the poll with the consent of respondent-1 and one Patel Swamy Gowda's son who is a contractor and the relation of respondent-1, threatened and sent out the petitioner's agent Ramegowda out of the polling station and made their own henchmen to cast their votes by impersonation ? (39) Does the petitioner prove that the petitioner's agent Nataraj was not even allowed to the polling station by shivaraj who is a contractor and relation of respondent -1? (40) Does the petitioner prove that the said Shivaraj threatened the voters at hariharapura polling station No. 31 and that he got most of the votes of the minor community people exercised by proxy before the arrival of the real voters and that there was thus a large scale exercise of votes by impersonation? (41) Does the petitioner prove that ramegowda, the brother of respondent-1 who is also a contractor and one Subbaramu who is also a contractor and one Ningegowda who is also a contractor are obliged to respondent-1 and they not only prevented the voters from voting but also they managed to see that the votes were cast by impersonation in favour of respondent-1? (42) Does the petitioner prove that the contractors like Haravegowda, Ran- gaswamy, Ramegowda and Thammappa threatened the voters belonging to the minorities and weaker sections and Harijans not to go to the polling station and to show the ballot papers to the Janata Party agent even if they went to the booth? (43) Does the petitioner prove that the petitioner's agent Appanna, son of subbegowda, was threatened two days prior to the polling by the Janata workers at the instance of respondent-1 and his people and that the supporters of respondent-1 pelted stones and damaged his house? (43) Does the petitioner prove that the petitioner's agent Appanna, son of subbegowda, was threatened two days prior to the polling by the Janata workers at the instance of respondent-1 and his people and that the supporters of respondent-1 pelted stones and damaged his house? (44) Does the petitioner prove that on 6-3-1985 in Doddakuncha village, janata workers with the knowledge and consent of respondent-1 went to harijan colony and removed the taps and damaged the doors and roofs and caused injuries to one person who had admittedly sustained an injury? (45) Does the petitioner prove that many persons not residing in particular villages and many fictitious persons and many persons who were minors, were got included in the additional voters list by respondent-1 and his people and that such votes were exercised in favour of respondent-1? (46) Does the petitioner prove that the votes of dead persons were got cast in favour of respondent-1 by impersona- tion, by respondent-1 and his people with the knowledge and consent of respondent-1? (47) Does the petitioner prove as urged in para VII (7) that the contractors huchegowda, Nagaraj and P. L. D. President and another contractor gangadhara and Krishnegowda, contractor, Raje Gowda, contractor, and various other contractors and the daily wage earners under the said contractors, prevented the harijans and the voters belonging to the weaker sections from going to the booth and to show the ballot papers to the polling agents of respondent-1 even if they went to the booth? (48) Does the petitioner prove that the petitioner's booth supervisor Some- gowda, Advocate, was dragged out and was not allowed to visit the polling station? (49) Does the petitioner prove that in bcechanahalli polling station No. 39, shivanna, contractor, Raju V. P. Member Rudrappa, Agriculturist, who -are all Janata workers threatened venkata Subbaiah, the petitioner's polling agent not to come in the way of people exercising the votes by impersonation? (50) Does the petitioner prove as urged in para VII (8) that the real voters were not allowed by respondent-1 and his people to vote on one plea or the other and that there was large scale rigging? (51) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 45 that is the village of respondent-1, Javaregowda, the petitioner's polling agent was kidnapped by the people of respondent-1 in a car on the election day i. e. 5-3- 1985 in the morning? (51) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 45 that is the village of respondent-1, Javaregowda, the petitioner's polling agent was kidnapped by the people of respondent-1 in a car on the election day i. e. 5-3- 1985 in the morning? (52) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1's brother Basavegowda and respondent-1's cousin Nanjegowda and respondent- 1's brother-in-law ningegowda and Gangadharagowda and other contractors threatened a large number of voters and did not permit them to exercise their votes? (53) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 got posted one Nanjegowda, a native of the same village, as a polling officer to that village? (54) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 and his people induced or threatened many a voter to exercise the vote in favour of respondent-1? (55) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 48 Rangegowda and Mukunda and another Rangegowda and Patil Marigowda threatened the petitioner's polling agent Thimmegowda and did not even permit him to raise the objection and did not permit the voters to exercise the votes ? (56) Does the petitioner prove that one shallappa, Assistant Engineer, halekote, who was the Presiding Officer of polling station No. 48 was got transferred by respondent-1 and that he helped exercise of votes by impersonation in favour of respondent-1? (57) Does the petitioner prove that on 4-3-1985 right, Janata party workers at the instance of respondent-1 and in furtherance of their common object to scare the voters and to prevent the people from coming to the polling station, assaulted the petitioner's people and damaged the vehicle of the petitioner and assaulted his followers? (58) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 49 Hanumanahally, the Assistant Engineer Nanjegowda was got transferred by respondent-1 and was got appointed as a Presiding officer and that Lakkegowda and respondent-1's brother-in-law Ajjegowda, Annegowda, Sethigowda and many others joined together at the instance of respondent-1 and threatened the voters belonging to minor communities like Achars and harijans and they did not permit them to go to the booth and that they even threatened them with danger to their life and property if they voted for the petitioner? (59) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 50, Kamasamudra, assistant Engineer Manjegowda who was got transferred by respondent-1 was the Presiding Officer and that mudalagirigowda and his son and contractor Rangegowda at the instance of respondent-1, prevented the harijans from voting and prevented several voters also from exercising their votes? (60) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 52 Paduvalahippe where respondent-1 owns property, many persons who are not the residents of that village and who are minors were got included in the voters' list by respondent-1 and his people and that the votes of such persons were got cast by respondent-1 and his people by impersonation? (61) Does the petitioner prove as mentioned in para VII (14) that he and his supporters were threatened by respondent-1 and his people by writing threatening letters? (62) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 62 Maranayakana- halli, P. W. D. Contractor Manjegowda and contractor Naganna and Thimmegowda and Rangegowda joined together and at the instance of respondent-1 prevented the Jogi community voters and Harijans and Ak- kasaligas voters from exercising their votes and that their votes were cast by janata party workers by impersonation? (63) Does the petitioner prove that one manjegowda who is well disposed to respondent-1, has exercised many a vote by impersonation? (64) Does the petitioner prove that basappa and Annaiah have encouraged rigging and have exercised or got exercised many votes by impersonation in favour of respondent-1? (65) Does the petitioner prove that the said Annaiah and Basappa were setup by respondent-1 to threaten the ryots that if they did not vote for respondent-1, they would be deprived of the water facility? (66) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 5, Doddakarade village, b. C. Krishnappa, Junior Engineer, who was got posted there, was the Presiding Officer and that Ningappa, Shivalingappa, Dharmanna, manjunath who are the agents of respondent-1, arranged a feast on 4-3-1985 i. e. previous to the date of polling, for all the polling staff and that the voters were threatened not to vote for the petitioner and that in the course of the feast promise was taken from the polling staff to support respondent-1 ? (67) Does the petitioner prove that the petitioner's agent Yoganna was beaten by respondent-1's people in the morning of 5-3-1985? (67) Does the petitioner prove that the petitioner's agent Yoganna was beaten by respondent-1's people in the morning of 5-3-1985? (68) Does the petitioner prove that in polling station No. 9 Yeliyur respondent-1's relation Kalappa Gowda was the Presiding Officer and that the said kalappa Gowda allowed Rangappa and Chandru, Janata party workers, to cast votes by impersonation in favour of respondent-1? (69) Does the petitioner prove as mentioned in para VII (17) that some persons had exercised votes by impersonation 10 to 12 times and that when the real voters came to the booth after 12 noon, they were sent out on the ground that their votes had already been cast and that the petitioner's agent was not allowed even to raise objections and he was necked out? (70) Does the petitioner prove as mentioned in para VII (18) that respondent-1 and his workers and that nine p. W. D. contractors freshly enlisted as contractors, threatened the Christian and Harijan voters and assaulted devaraja of Chennapura village and suresh of Anekere village and the petitioner's polling agent was thrown out from the polling station? (71) Does the petitioner prove that in kalenahalli village, in the course of the election, respondent-1's supporters attacked the petitioner at about 9-00 p. m. and damaged his car? (72) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 and his people circulated false rumours with the sole object of assassinating the character of the petitioner and thus impairing the prospects in the election and thus respondent-1 is guilty of corrupt practice? (73) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 and one P. W. D. contractor Nagaraj, an active supporter of respondent-1, published and circulated false rumours in Assembly Constituency No. 133 and thereby assassinated the character of the petitioner with the object of misleading the voters? (74) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 and his people with the knowledge and consent of respondent-1 supplied free liquor and food and money to the voters in order to secure the votes and thus respondent -1 is guilty of corrupt practice? (75) Does the petitioner prove that in doddakarade and Sathenahalli and gyarahalli and Varanahalli and yeliyur and Dindiganahalli, liquor and food were supplied from 25-2-1985 to 4-3-1985 by respondent-1 and revanna and the contractors Lingegowda, Manjegowda, shivalingappa, Krishnegowda and Viswanath and others? (75) Does the petitioner prove that in doddakarade and Sathenahalli and gyarahalli and Varanahalli and yeliyur and Dindiganahalli, liquor and food were supplied from 25-2-1985 to 4-3-1985 by respondent-1 and revanna and the contractors Lingegowda, Manjegowda, shivalingappa, Krishnegowda and Viswanath and others? (76) Does the petitioner prove that respondent-1 and his people deliberately arranged free conveyance to the voters on the date of poll and engaged not less than 70 vehicles of all types for carrying the voters to the polling station? (77) Does the petitioner prove that his counting agents were not allowed to sit near the counting staff or the returning Officer to verify the ballot papers? (78) Does the petitioner prove that the counting was in violation of the Rules and Regulations and instructions? (79) Does the petitioner prove that more than 90 per cent polling took place in polling station Nos. 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 23, 33, 34, 45, 52, 84, 94, 96, 97, 109, 117 and 125 and that the petitioner and his agents requested the Returning Officer and the counting officials to make recount in these cases as per the instructions to the Election Commission and that such a request was turned down for no valid grounds at all? (80) Does the petitioner prove that the additional lists of voters were suppressed and were not made available to him? (81) Is the petitioner entitled to reinspec- tion and recount as prayed? (82) Is the petitioner entitled to the exclusion of the votes mentioned in prayer column (b)? (83) Is the petitioner entitled to get the votes marked in favour of respondent - 1 in polling station Nos. 23, 47, 29, 32, 33,39,45,48, 49, 50, 52,62, 5,9 and 35 excluded? (84) Is the petitioner entitled as prayed in prayer column No. (d) to get excluded the votes polled in favour of respon- deht-1? (85) Is the election of respondent-1 liable to be set aside? (86) Is the petitioner entitled to a declaration that he is duly elected from holenarasipur Constituency to the assembly? (87) Is the petitioner entitled to get the names of such persons held to be guilty of corrupt practice, named? (88) What order? ( 17 ) MY findings are:- issue No. 1 No. Issue No. 2 : It is not proved that the promise was made with the consent, knowledge or connivance of respondent- 1. (87) Is the petitioner entitled to get the names of such persons held to be guilty of corrupt practice, named? (88) What order? ( 17 ) MY findings are:- issue No. 1 No. Issue No. 2 : It is not proved that the promise was made with the consent, knowledge or connivance of respondent- 1. It is not proved that the said publications were made with a view to induce the voters to cast the votes in favour of the Janata Party candidate. Such a publication does not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of the Act. Issue No. 3 : it is not proved that the publication in question was made with the consent, knowledge and connivance of respondent-1. Such a publication, even if made, does not offend the integrity and unity of the country and does not bring about any hatred between different classes of citizens of India. It does not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 of the Act. It is not proved that respondent-1 and his personal Secretary got transferred srinivasachari as Assistant commissioner to Hassan Sub division on the eve of the election. Though srinivasachari-respon dent-7 was the Returning officer, it is not proved that he helped respondent-1 in the course of counting or election. ( 21 ) RESPONDENT-1 after succeeding in the karnataka Assembly election held in 1983 became a Minister for P. W. D. and Irrigation. He continued to be the Minister till 16-8-1984. The Janata Government was sworn on 10th January 1983. Respondent-1 voluntarily resigned from the Ministership in august, 1984. After resigning from the Ministry, he became the Karnataka State Janata party President. He continued to be the president of the Janata Party even till the end of March, 1985. While he contested the karnataka Assembly election in March 1985, he was not a Minister and he was only the president of the Karnataka State Janata party. ( 22 ) RESPONDENT-1 contested the Karnataka Assembly election held in 1985 both from Holenarasipur Constituency as well as satanur Constituency which is a segment of kanakapur taluk. He succeeded in both the constituencies. But, however, he retained his seat from Holenarasipur Constituency and resigned his seat from Satanur Constituency. It is undisputed that respondent-1 after the Janata Party came into power in 1985, has been functioning as a Minister for p. W. D. and Irrigation. He succeeded in both the constituencies. But, however, he retained his seat from Holenarasipur Constituency and resigned his seat from Satanur Constituency. It is undisputed that respondent-1 after the Janata Party came into power in 1985, has been functioning as a Minister for p. W. D. and Irrigation. ( 23 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has been in active politics ever since 1958. He contested the Taluka Board election, holenarasipur, for the first time in 1968 as a congress candidate. Even according to the petitioner, respondent-1 supported him in that election. The petitioner and 12 other candidates of the Congress party succeeded in that Taluka Board election in 1968. The present sitting M. L. C. Doddegowda who was sponsored by the K. P. C. C. became the President, T. D. B. Holenarasipur, for one year in 1968. The said Doddegowda resigned the presidentship of T. D. B. in 1969. The present petitioner became the President of the t. D. B. Holenarasipur, in 1969. According to the petitioner, the number of members supporting him in T. D. B. fell down to 5 in 1969. According to the petitioner, the number fell down to 5 on account of the split in the Congress. He continued to be the President o ( t. D. B. Holenarasipur till it was superseded by the Government in 1971. Even according to the petitioner, he was a close associate of respondent-1 till about 1983 or 1984. The petitioner was a member of the Legislative council for 6 years and his membership of the Legislative Council came to an end in june, 1984. He was elected as a member of the Legislative Council as a person belonging to Janata party. When his membership came to an end in June 1984, the Janata party did not give him ticket to contest the Council election again in 1984. According to him, the executive Committee of the Janata party selected one Pundalik belonging to scheduled Caste to contest the seat in the council in 1964. It becomes clear from the evidence of the petitioner that he joined the congress party in 1984 for the first time after he ceased to be the member of the Legislative Council in 1984. Respondent-1 and the petitioner who were good friends till then, became arch enemies atleast from June 1984 since when the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Legislative Council. Respondent-1 and the petitioner who were good friends till then, became arch enemies atleast from June 1984 since when the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Legislative Council. Thus it becomes clear that the petitioner and respondent-1 fell out on account of the political differences and perhaps also on account of the fact that the petitioner was not given a ticket to contest the Council seat again in 1984. ( 24 ) NOW looking to the evidence on record and the material placed by both the parties on record, it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner and respondent-1 who were once close associates and very close friends from 1958 onwards, suddenly became arch enemies atleast from 1984 onwards. ( 25 ) THE petitioner lost the election in march 1985 by a margin of 3,167 votes. Respondent-1 succeeded in the Assembly election held in March 1985 by a margin of 3,167 votes. ( 26 ) RESPONDCNT-1's election has been questioned by the petitioner on the ground of corrupt practices and on account of the alleged bribery alleged to be offered by respondent-1 and his people with his consent, and also on the ground of a promise made by the Janata party on the eve of election to supply rice and clothes at a very low price to the poor and the weaker sections of the society, and also on the ground of Janata party offering to advance loans to the women entrepreneurs without security and at subsidised rates of interest, and also on the ground of the Janata party activity affecting the integrity and unity of the Country. The petitioner also questioned respondent-1's election on the ground that respondent-1 ever since 1983 onwards started getting the government officials or officers who were in his confidence and belonging to various departments transferred to the various places in Holenarasipur Taluk anticipating trouble form the petitioner and with the sole object of misusing the official machinery for the purpose of bettering the election prospects well in anticipation of the e'cction to be held in 1985 itself The petitioner also challenged the electioi of respondent-1 on the ground that the Assistant Education Officer visveswaraiah and Rangegowda the president of the Teachers' Association, holenarasipur, called a meeting of the teachers in Holenarasipur Taluk on the eve of the election and in that meeting presided over by respondent-1, the said A. E. O. Visveswaraiah requested the teachers to canvass for respondent-1 and to request all their friends and relatives to vote for respondent-1. It is alleged that respondent-1 in that meeting told the teachers that he was much obliged to them all these years as they were helping him in the election and he requested them to continue to help him even in the election of 1985. It is alleged that respondent-1 told the said teachers that he would see to it that they were continued in the place of their choice and that he would see that even on promotion they would be posted to the very places of their own choice. It is also alleged by the petitioner that respondent-1 by misusing his position as an ex-P. W. D. and Irrigation Minister and by misusing his position as the President of the janata party, wielded influence over the junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Assistant executive Engineers, Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers and the Chief Engineers and other officials working in the Irrigation Department and sought their help in influencing the voters and in securing votes and also got appointed large- number of contractors, literate coolies and manual labourers with a view to see that they helped him in securing the votes. He also questioned respondcnt-1' s election on the ground that respondent- 1 appealed to the feelings of the voters on the ground of caste, creed, community and religion. He also questioned the election on the ground that one Krishna Murthy who was the Junior Engineer was the agent of respondent-3 in polling station No. 75. He also questioned respondcnt-1' s election on the ground that respondent- 1 appealed to the feelings of the voters on the ground of caste, creed, community and religion. He also questioned the election on the ground that one Krishna Murthy who was the Junior Engineer was the agent of respondent-3 in polling station No. 75. He also questioned respondent- 1's election on the ground that respondent- 1 and his son and his agents and his supporters with the knowledge and consent of respondent-1, theatcned the voters belonging to Harijan community and minority communities and backward communities and restrained them from coming to the booth and from exercising their votes. He also questioned respondent- 1's election on the ground that respondent-1 and his son and his agents with the knowledge and consent of respondent-1 necked out the polling agents of the petitioner from the various polling stations and assaulted some polling agents of the petitioner on the election day. He also questioned respondent- 1's election on the ground that respondent-1 and his son and his agents with the knowledge and consent of respondent-1 necked out the polling agents of the petitioner from the various polling stations and assaulted some polling agents of the petitioner on the election day. The petitioner also questioned respondent-1's election on the ground that respondent-1 and his son and his agents and his people with his consent, knowledge and connivance, indulged in rigging and exercised a large number of votes by impersonation which had materially affected the result of the election he also questioned respondent-1's election on the ground that respondent-1 and his son in conspiracy with the Tahsildar cum-Assistant Returning Officer and the Revenue In specters and the Village Accountants got enrolled the minors as voters though they were ineligible, and got enrolled even the persons who had left the various villages long long before and who were living elsewhere either in Bangalore or Audugodi or other places Thus he challenged the election of respondent-1 on the ground that respondent-1 in connivance with the concerned officials, got prepared additional voters lists enrolling the ineligible voters as voters He also challenged the election of respondent 1 on the ground that respondent 1 and his friend and agent K P Nagaraj and his friend and agent doddcgowda and the supporters of rcspon dent-1, got published a news item in Kan nada Madhyama paper dated 5 2 1985 exhibit P7 and the pamphlet Exhibit P2 and the news items in Janata Madhyama paper dated 25 12-1984 Exhibit P13 and Samyukta karnataka paper dated 4 3 f985 Exhibit p129 and the Janata Madhyama paper dated 16 12 1984 Exhibit P134 and the Lankesh patrike dated 24 3 1985 Exhibit P66, making reckless, false, untruthful and unsustainable allegations against the petitioner and thereby assassinated the character of the petitioner with the sole object of bringing down the petitioner in the estimation of the public and thereby attempting to affect prejudicially the election prospects of the petitioner He also challenged respondent 1's election on the ground that respondent-1 and his son and his agents and supporters with the knowledge and consent of respondent-f, distributed liquor, money and food freely to the voters and the members of the public and to some mem bcrs of the polling staff on the eve of the election with a view to woo the voters and with a view to secure their votes He also challenged the election of respondent 1 on the ground that even the counting officials and the polling officials and the Returning officer were all got appointed by respon dent-1 for bettering the prospects of his election and that the counting officers committed deliberately various mistakes and manipulated the number of votes in favour of respondent-1. ( 27 ) THE learned counsel Shn Shantaraj for respondent 1 submitted that the election petition did not disclose the cause of action and did not satisfy the requirements of Section 83 of the Representation of the People act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') According to him, the corrupt practices on which the election can be set aside must be relating to a candidate According to him, the High Court could declare the election to be void only on the grounds mentioned in Section 100 of the Act According to him, the result of the election in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, had not been shown to have been materially affected by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination or of any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by his agent or returned candidate or the election agent of the candidate or by the improper receiption, refusal or rejection ot any vote which is void According to him section 123 of the Act lays down as to what were the corrupt practices and what amounted to a bribery According to him the said corrupt practices and bribery referred to in Section 123 must be shown to have been committed by a candidate or his agent According to him, the publication which amounts to a corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 (4) must be by a candidate or his agent or by any other per son, with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, and it must be in relation to any other candidate According to him, the obtaining or procuring or abetting or at tempting lo obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent, or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent any assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election, must be from persons in the service of the Government and belonging to any one of the following classes namely, (a) Gazetted Officers; (b) Stipendiary Judges and Magistrates; (c) Members of the armed forces of the union; (d) Members of the police forces; (e) Excise Officers; (f) Revenue Officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect Land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any police functions; and (g) Such other class of persons in the service of the Government as may be prescribed. He relied on Section 127a of the Act to show that the printing or publishing of any pamphlets or news items is required to be in consonance with the requirements of Section 127a. According to him, the conduct of election Rules, 1961, prescribed certain statutory duties to be performed by the officials and there was a presumption that the government officials discharged their duties in accordance with the statutory rules and law and it was incumben' :pon the petitioner to prove beyond doubi as to how the said duties and responsibilities imposed on the government servants by the conduct of the election rules were violated by the officers concerned. According to him, the election could be challenged only on the grounds mentioned in Section 100 of the Act, but not on any other ground. According to him, the charges made would be the basis of an election petition and were in the nature of criminal charges and those charges must be proved beyond a pale of doubt by satisfactory, cogent and reliable evidence and that the Election Petition cannot be decided on mere probabilities or improbabilities just as is done in the case of civil cases. ( 28 ) HE drew my attention to the amended section 79 of the Act which defines various words. Section 79 (b) reads as:- 'candidate' means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. " prior to the amendment inserted by the amending Act No. 40/75, the definition of a candidate given in Section 79 (b) of the Act read as:- 'candidate' means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election, and any such person shall be deemed to have been a candidate as from the time when, with the election in prospect, he began to hold himself out as a prospective candidate;" if the old definition is compared with the present definition of a candidate, it becomes clear that the following words "and any such person shall be deemed to have been a candidate as from the time when, with the election in prospect, he began to hold himself out as a prospective candidate" have been omitted. Therefore the definition of a candidate is restricted now only to a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate in any election. If any person begins to hold himself out as a prospective candidate, it does not make him a candidate within the meaning of Section 79 (b) as it stands amended. It has no retrospective operation now as it was before the amendment of 1975. The importance of the definition is now two ford. (1) the definition of corrupt practice covers acts of the candidate from the time when his candidature begins and (2) the return of the election expenses before amendment required all expenses incurred during the election to be included. The unamended definition was covering all the acts of a candidate com- commilted by him at any time even before he filed the nomination paper if he held out himself as a candidate for the election to be held at some future time. ( 29 ) THE question as to when a person should be taken as having become a candidate for the purposes of the Act, came up for consideration in Smt. Indira Nehru gandhi v Shri Raj Narain ( AIR 1975 SC 2299 ). In para 147 on page 2334, it has been stated as:-"the contention of the respondent is that if a candidate is free to spend as much as a candidate likes before the date of nomination a great premium would be placed on free use of money before the date of nomination. The 1951 Act specifics what election expenses are of a candidate. The statute specifics time in regard to a candidate. That time cannot be enlarged or reduced. The holding out by a person of candidature was a flexible and elastic idea. The date of nomination is definite and doubtless. Different views may be taken as to the time of holding out. The Legislature has now set the matter at rest. "in para 221 on page 2358, it has been stated as:-"as the appellant filed her nomination paper on February 1, 1971, in view of the amended definition of the word 'candidate' it would have to be taken that the appellant became a candidate only on february 1, 1971. The Legislature has now set the matter at rest. "in para 221 on page 2358, it has been stated as:-"as the appellant filed her nomination paper on February 1, 1971, in view of the amended definition of the word 'candidate' it would have to be taken that the appellant became a candidate only on february 1, 1971. The result is that even if the finding of the High Court that the appellant obtained and procured the assistance of Yeshpal Kapur during the period from January 7 to 24, 1971, were assumed to be correct, the appellant shall not be deemed to have committed corrupt practice under Section 123 (7) of the r. P. Act. "in para 384 on page 2392, in has been stated as:-"there can be no doubt that Section 100 (1) (b), when it speaks of commission of corrupt practice by a returned candidate, it can only mean commission of corrupt practice by a candidate before he became a returned candidate. Any other reading of the sub- Section would be absurd. But there is no such compulsion to read the word 'candidate' in Section 123 (7) in the same manner. It is the context that gives colour to a word. A word is not crystal clear. Section 79 of the act Indicates that the definitions therein have to be read subject to the context. "in para 385 it has been stated as:-"the Legislature must fix some point of time before which a person cannot be a candidate" in an election, and, a wide latitude must be given to the Legislature in fixing that time. In Union of India v paramcshwaran Match Works (Civil appeal Nos. 262-273, 587-591 and 1351-1402 of 1970-71 and 1883-1921 of 1972 D/-4-11-1974 = (Reported in A. I. R. 1974 SC 2349) this Court observed : "the choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or point there must be, and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of the reasonable mark. See Louisville Gas company v Alabama Power Co. When it is seen that a line or point there must be, and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of the reasonable mark. See Louisville Gas company v Alabama Power Co. , 240 US 30 at page 32 per Justice Holmes"in para 387 on page 2393 it has been stated as:-"i would therefore hold that even if it be assumed that the finding of the High court that the appellant obtained or procured the assistance of Sri Yeshpal kapur during the period from January 7 to 24, 1971, is correct, the appellant shall not be deemed to have committed corrupt practice under Section 123 (7) of the representation of the People Act, 1951, as she became a candidate only on february 1,1971. "in view of the said Supreme Court decision, the fixing of the time from which point of time a person would be a candidate for the purpose of the Representation of the People act, cannot be considered to be arbitrary or unreasonable or suffering from any vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Therefore the definition of a candidate given in section 79 (b) does not suffer from any vice of unreasonableness or excessiveness. The definition of the word 'candidate' given in section 79 (b) of the Act has been held to be intra-vires of the Legislature or the Parliament and it continues to hold the - filed as it has not been struck down by the Supreme court in the said decision. Therefore in view of the definition of the word 'candidate' as given by Section 79 (b) which stands on the statute book today, only a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated is a candidate at any election. Therefore in view of the said definition and the decision of the Supreme Court, it is now manifestly clear that a person becomes a candidate for the purpose of the Act only from the time when he files his nomination paper before the returning Officer. Thus a person cannot be considered to be a candidate for the purposes of the Act at any time prior to the filing of the nomination paper. Thus a person cannot be considered to be a candidate for the purposes of the Act at any time prior to the filing of the nomination paper. The requirement of Section 100 and 123 (7) and other requirements of the Act for invalidating the election only speak of acts by a candidate or acts against a candidate. Therefore only those acts which have been committed by a candidate or against a candidate only after the nomination paper is filed, will attract the forfeiture of the candidature under the Act. Whatever might be done or might have been done by a candidate prior to the filing of the nomination paper, will not be sufficient to dislodge a returned candidate from the seat. Even if a person had started holding himself out as a prospective candidate for the election to be held in future, whatever acts, though corrupt, illegal and opposed to morals, might have been committed by him before he filed the nomination paper, they will not attract the penal consequences of the act itself and there is no question of retrospective effect now because the definition of the word 'candidate' has been amended by Act No. 40 of 1975. The old view that if a person committed any corrupt acts or illegal acts or acts opposed to morals by holding himself out as a prospective candidate for the election to be held in the future, they shall be deemed to have been committed by a candidate, is no longer a good view. The Courts are not concerned as to what ought to be the law. Their duty is only to interpret the law as it stands. Therefore I am not concerned with the wisdom of the Parliament in amending the definition of the word, candidate. Therefore the alleged corrupt acts or omissions and/or alleged illegalities or irregularities or alleged acts of corruption and bribery or any other act which can be pressed into service in an Election Petition, must be committed only after a person files his nomination paper as he can be considered to be a candidate only after he files the nomination paper. ( 30 ) IN para VI from page 11 onwards of the Election Petition, the petitioner has set out the various acts of corruption and bribery. ( 30 ) IN para VI from page 11 onwards of the Election Petition, the petitioner has set out the various acts of corruption and bribery. Para VI of the petition reads as:- "the election of the respondent-1 is liable to be set aside and declared void under section 123 (7) of the Representation of peoples Act, 1951, for obtaining and procuring the assistance of the persons in government service. That the respondent-1 had so kept the officials in holenarasipur Constituency in several departments such as Education department, Department of Revenue and officials of K. I. D. and P. W. D. and Police department in such positions and induced them by his position which he occupied in the Government and with influence as party President, with the object of taking their services in furtherance of the prospects in the election and with the sole object to act prejudicially to the election prospects of the petitioner. That the respondent No. 1, his election agent and the Janata party workers have so used and taken the services of the Government officials who were in charge of election duty of No. 133- Holenarasipur Assembly constituency and prevented free and fair election. " para VI (1) speaks that respondent-1 prior to his becoming a Janata party President in l')84 got several officials of Education department, Public Works Department and revenue Department and Police Department and various other Departments, transferred to various places in Holenarasipur taluk. According to him, all the said officials are in one way or the other obliged to him. According to him, respondent-1 had got posted his relations and officials of holenarasipur Taluk itself in such key villages where there were large number of votes and he did so with the object of rigging the poll in the Constituency. According to him, he had prevailed on the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, hassan, not to lend protection even in the event of complaint by the petitioner and his followers. According to him, respondent-1 though he was only a Janata party President, exercised so much of power as though he was the supreme authority and conducted himself as a Minister for P. W. D. According to him, he influenced and induced the Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineers and all junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers of hemavati project to help him in the matter. Respondent-1 filed his nomination paper on 8-2-1985 for the election to be held in March, 1985. Therefore, respondent-1 became a candidate for the purpose of the Act only from 8-2-1985. The said allegations do not mention the time, date, month and year of getting the various Government officials transferred to various places in holenarasipur taluk. Even if any officers have been transferred to any place in holenarasipur taluk and even assuming that they were transferred at the instance of respondent- 1 and if it is prior to 8-2-1985, they do not come within the meaning of the word 'corrupt practice or bribery or undue influence' at all. The various files relating to the transfers got produced by the petitioner are at Exhibits P31, P124, P125, etc. All those files would go to show that all the officers mentioned in them have been transferred prior to 8-2-1985 when respondent-1 filed his nomination paper. Even the Assistant Education Officer Visveswaraiah against whom much has been stated and alleged by the petitioner, as can be seen from Exhibit p49 (a), was transferred as per the order dated 23-1-1985 which is much prior to 8-2-1985 when respondent-1 filed his nomination paper. Even the orders of transfers of the other Government servants like abdul Jabbar, Tahsildar of Holenarasipur, and Sheriff P. S. I, of Holenarasipur, and srinivasachari, Assistant Commissioner, hassan Sub Division, which includes holenarasipur taluk, and Bettegowda Tahsildar, Channarayapatna, and the transfers of the Revenue Inspectors like Satyanarayana setty, Rangegowda, Papcgowda, Ganesh, and the transfers of the Village Accountants like Eregowda, Devarajcgowda, Sanna javaregowda, Singegowda, Sambhugowda and Channegowd,a and other Village Accountants and the transfers of the various engineers like Junior Engineer Krishna murthy, Assistant Executive Engineer javaraiah and the Assistant Education Officer Visveswaraiah and H. N. Maligowda, k. L. Ramaswamy, K. M. Kalegowda, B. C. Krishnappa, c. K. Ramaswamy, K. A. Kalappa Gowda, c. J. Nanjegowda, S. P. Manjegowda and so many other were all prior ,t to 8-2-1985 when respondent-1 filed his nomination. No material has been placed before the Court to show that the officers were got transferred by rcspondent-1 or were transferred to any place in holenarasipur after 8-2-1985. There is no satisfactory material placed to show that even if any transfer had taken place after 8-2-1985, respondent-1 had any hand in getting them transferred. No material has been placed before the Court to show that the officers were got transferred by rcspondent-1 or were transferred to any place in holenarasipur after 8-2-1985. There is no satisfactory material placed to show that even if any transfer had taken place after 8-2-1985, respondent-1 had any hand in getting them transferred. Therefore the contentions of the petitioner that respondent-1 got transferred the various officials or officers of various Departments to various places in holenarasipur in order to better his election prospects, do not come Within the ambit of corrupt practice as defined by Section 123 of the Act, or do not come within the ambit of section 100 of the Act or within the ambit of section 100 (d) of the Act. ( 31 ) IT was contended by the petitioner that the appointment of the Presiding Officers and the polling officials was got done by respondent-1 in order to suit his own convenience; and that respondent-1 got posted his own people of confidence in the various polling stations and that he got changed some of the Presiding Officers of polling stations on the eve of the election in order to see that only those persons that were in his confidence went to particular booths. The said assertion, is not supported by any material on record. The dates of those appointments and the dates of the change in those appointments and the change in the booths, has not been made clear in the petition itself. ( 32 ) KANNADA Madhyama Exhibit P7 which, according to the petitioner, assassinates his character is dated 5-2-1985. As already stated above, respondent-1 has filed his nomination on 8-2-1985. The dale on which the petitioner filed his nomination paper, is not spoken to by him and is not proved by any evidence on record. Therefore even if Kannada Madhyama dated 5-2-1985 can be said to assassinate the personal character of the petitioner, it would be prior to the date of the filing of the nomination paper by respondent-1. It is not shown that the said Kannada Madhyama paper was published after the petitioner filed his nomination paper. The news item in Exhibit p7 is purported to have been printed under the name of K. P. Nagaraj, President, P. L. D. Bank Limited, Holenarasipur. It is no doubt true that K. P. Nagaraj is the active supporter of respondent-1. It is not shown that the said Kannada Madhyama paper was published after the petitioner filed his nomination paper. The news item in Exhibit p7 is purported to have been printed under the name of K. P. Nagaraj, President, P. L. D. Bank Limited, Holenarasipur. It is no doubt true that K. P. Nagaraj is the active supporter of respondent-1. Neither the printer nor the publisher of the Janata Madhyama paper, has been examined to show as to who is the author of the news item in Exhibit P7. The original of the letter said to have been written by K. P. Nagaraj to the said Janata Madhyama, has not been got produced at all to show as to who is the author of the news item. The petitioner, it appears, does not know personally who is the author of that news item. Therefore in the absence of the evidence of the printer and publisher of the janata Madhyama and in the absence of any personal knowledge of the petitioner as to who is the author of that news item, it would be too hazardous a conclusion for the purposes of this case to hold that it was got published by K. P. Nagaraj. Further, there is nothing to show that it was got printed or published by K. P. Nagaraj with the knowledge of respondent-1. There is no material to show that respondent-1 had any hand in the printing or publishing of the said news item. The petitioner has filed a compliant under Section 500 I. P. C. against K. P. Nagaraj and R. P. Vcnkatesha Murthy, editor of Janata Madhyama and printer and publisher Prakash B. Patil in respect of the news item contained in Janata Madhyama paper Exhibit P7. A certified copy of that complaint has been produced at Exhibit D18. There is nothing in Exhibit D18 to show that respondent-1 has got printed or published the said news item in Exhibit P7, under the name of K. P. Nagaraj or got it printed or published through K. P. Nagaraj or to show that respondent-1 had any knowledge about the said news item. On the other hand, respondent-1 has stated that he came to know about it only after he received a copy of the election petition along with the an- nexures thereto. On the other hand, respondent-1 has stated that he came to know about it only after he received a copy of the election petition along with the an- nexures thereto. ( 33 ) IT was contended for the petitioner that thousands of pamphlets like Exhibit P12 were got printed by respondent-1 and his supporters M. G. Doddegowda or by himself under the name of M. G. Doddegowda and such pamphlets were distributed throughout the Constituency during the election campaign. The said pamphlet Exhibit P12 does not show in what printing press it was printed. It does not show on what date or at what time or in which month or year it was published. The petitioner does not state specifically as to on what date or in which month or year it was printed or published. It may be that the said pamphlet shows the symbol of Janatha party. Simply because janata party symbol is printed on the pamphlet, it does not mean that it was got printed by the Janata party or by respondent- 1 or M. G. Doddegowda. Therefore there is nothing to show that the said pamphlet Exhibit P12 was printed or published after the petitioner became a candidate or after respondent-1 became a candidate. ( 34 ) AS can be seen from the evidence of the petitioner and his other witnesses, such pamphlets of various colours like red, turmeric, green etc. , were distributed throughout the Constituency. None of the witnesses of the petitioner who claims to have seen the distribution of such pamphletsor who claims to have received such parnph'ets, has produced the said pamphlets which they have received. Except the one at exhibit P12, no other pamphlet has been got produced by the petitioner from any one of the persons living in Holenarasipur Constituency. ( 35 ) IT was vehemently contended by Shri shantaraj that the pamphlet like Exhibit P12 can be primed surreptitiously in order to create evidence for the purpose of this case. The said argument advanced by the learned counsel Shri Shantaraj cannot be said to be without force. Therefore though the said pamphlet Exhibit P12 might be containing some allegations against the petitioner, it cannot be said to amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act. The said argument advanced by the learned counsel Shri Shantaraj cannot be said to be without force. Therefore though the said pamphlet Exhibit P12 might be containing some allegations against the petitioner, it cannot be said to amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act. Respondent-1 has stated that he came to know about this pamphlet for the first time only after he was served with a copy of the election petition along with the An- nexures thereto in this case. ( 36 ) THE petitioner then relied on Janatha madhyama paper dated 25-12-1984. The news item is at Exhibit P13 (a ). It is no doubt true that the petitioner therein has been described as a Bbtjed aea politician (Dishonest or Crooked ). It is much prior to 8. 2. 1985 when respondent - 1 filed his nomination. As can be seen from the petition, it does not become clear from the petition, it does not become clear from the material as to when the petitioner filed his nomination paper and became a candidate, therefore there is nothing to show that Exhibit P13 (a) was printed or published atleast after the petitioner became a candidate. Therefore even assuming that Exhibit P13 (a) contains any personal attack on the character of the petitioner, it does not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act. ( 37 ) THE petitioner then relied on lankesh newspaper Exhibit P66 dated 24-3-1985. It is after the declaration of the result of the election itself. It cannot be said to be a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act, because it is published after the declaration of the result of the election. Further there is nothing to show that the version therein is the true one as given by respondent-1 himself. Neither the printer nor the publisher nor the correspondent of the said paper who sent the news, has been examined. ( 38 ) HE then relied on Samyukta Karnataka paper dated 19-3-1985 produced at exhibit P67. It purports to contain the gist of the speech delivered by respondent-1, in channapatna on March 17, 1985. Rcspondent-1, when it was shown to him, stated that it does not contain the true version. According to him, it contains only a distorted version. ( 38 ) HE then relied on Samyukta Karnataka paper dated 19-3-1985 produced at exhibit P67. It purports to contain the gist of the speech delivered by respondent-1, in channapatna on March 17, 1985. Rcspondent-1, when it was shown to him, stated that it does not contain the true version. According to him, it contains only a distorted version. Neither the printer nor the publisher nor the correspondent who might be the author of that news item, has been examined by the petitioner in this case. Petitioner's evidence, in this connection, docs not commend itself to the conscience of the Court. Further admittedly it has come into existence some days after the election result was declared. Therefore it does not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act. ( 39 ) THE petitioner then relied on samyukta Karnataka paper dated 4-3-1985 produced at Exhibit PI 29. It purports to contain the speech delivered by respondent- 1 in Holenarasipur on 3rd March, 1985. According to respondent-1, it is not a correct version at all. Neither the printer nor the publisher nor the correspondent who sent news to the, paper, has been examined by the, petitioner. No explanation much less plausible for the non- examination of those persons, has been tendered by the petitioner. The petitioner does not claim to have any personal knowledge about that speech. Further it can be seen that it does not contain any personal attack on the character of the petitioner. If anything which relates to politics is said, it cannot be said to be an attack on the personal character of the petitioner. Therefore, under these circumstances, Exhibit P129 (a) also will not help the petitioner in any way. ( 40 ) HE then relied on Exhibits P127 dated 16-9-1984 and P128 dated 18-9-1984 and p130 dated 7th March, 1985, and the invitation card exhibit P131 dated 6-9-1981. Exhibit P127 dated 16-9-1984 is long before the petitioner and respondent-1 became the candidates. Exhibit P128 is an invitation card to felicitate rcspondent-1. It is dated 18-9-1984. It is before the petitioner and respondent-1 became the candidates. There is nothing in it to indicate that the character of the petitioner has been assassinated. Exhibit P127 dated 16-9-1984 is long before the petitioner and respondent-1 became the candidates. Exhibit P128 is an invitation card to felicitate rcspondent-1. It is dated 18-9-1984. It is before the petitioner and respondent-1 became the candidates. There is nothing in it to indicate that the character of the petitioner has been assassinated. Exhibit p130 is a hand bill printed showing that respondent-1 wanted to express his gratitude to the voters for having returned him to the assembly in the election held in March, 1985. It is dated 7-3-1985. It has come into existence after the result of the election was declared. There is nothing in it to indicate any attack on the personal character of the petitioner. Therefore it will not help the petitioner. Exhibit P131 is the invitation card to show that respondent-1 was going to lay the foundation stone of some building. The date of the function is 6-9-1981. Therefore it does not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the act. ( 41 ) THE petitioner then relied on Prajja prabhutva Exhibit P133 dated 11-9-1983. It does not contain any allegation against the petitioner. It is much prior to the petitioner and respondent-1 becoming candidates. Exhibit P134 is a Janata Madhyama paper dated 16-12-1984. Though Exhibit P143 might be said to contain some, attack on the character, of the petitioner, it is dated 16-12-1984 much prior to both the petitioner and respondent-1 becoming candidates for the election to be held in March 1985. Therefore it also will not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act. Exhibit P135 is a booklet published by respondent-1 dated 25-1-1967. It pertains to a period nearly 18 years prior to the election of 1985. It was a booklet when the petitioner and respondcnt-1 were close friends. Further it is a booklet published nearly 18 years before the election of 1985. Therefore it does not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act. ( 42 ) SO far as the contention contained in para VI (2) relating to Tippeswamy is concerned, it is not shown as to when he was transferred to Hassan or to any office in hassan District or in Holenarasipur. It is not mentioned when he was a Tahsildar, holenarasipur. ( 42 ) SO far as the contention contained in para VI (2) relating to Tippeswamy is concerned, it is not shown as to when he was transferred to Hassan or to any office in hassan District or in Holenarasipur. It is not mentioned when he was a Tahsildar, holenarasipur. It is not shown in the petition as to during what period he was the headquarters Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, hassan. Merely because Tippeswamy is now the Private Secretary of respondent-1, it does not mean that his services were utilised by respondent-1 during the election time. The date of transfer of tippeswamy is not mentioned in the petition. Therefore it cannot be made out whether he was transferred at any time either in 1984 or 1985 or after the petitioner or respondent-1 became the candidates. The transfer of respondent-7 as Assistant Commissioner to hassan Sub Division is not shown to have been effected either in 1984 or 1985 or at any time after the petitioner and respondent-1 became candidates. It is no doubt true that respondent-7 has been appointed as the returning Officer in Hassan District. But the appointment of any particular official as the Returning Officer is not done either by the Deputy Commissioner or by any other revenue officials or by the state Government. It is done only by the Election Commissioner. The appointment of the returning Officer would be published under the Notification publishing the calendar of events pertaining to the election. Therefore the appointment of respondent-7 as the returning Officer, would be much prior to the date of the filing of the nomination papers. Further there is nothing to show that respondent-1 had any hand in getting rcspondent-7 appointed as a Returning Officer. Therefore the appointment of respondent-7 as the returning Officer, would be much prior to the date of the filing of the nomination papers. Further there is nothing to show that respondent-1 had any hand in getting rcspondent-7 appointed as a Returning Officer. ( 43 ) FURTHER Section 123 (7) of the Act requires that the officers whose services are alleged to be procured or attempted to be procured must be (a) Gazetttcd officers; (b) stipendiary Judges and Magistrates; (c) members of the armed forces of the Union; (d) Members of the police forces; (e) Excise officers; (f) Revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patcls, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any police functions; (g) Such other class of persons in the service of the Government as may be prescribed. The Election Petition docs not show that any one of the officers mentioned in it is a Gazetted Officer or a stipendiary Judge or Magistrate or is a member of the armed forces of the Union, or is a member of the police force, or is a member of the Excise Department or is a revenue officer coming within the ambit of (f ). The petitioner has not produced any Notification of the Government showing what other classes of persons in the services of the Government have been notified for the purpose of section 123 (7))g ). So far as the Village Accountants are concerned, they are officers entrusted with the work of collecting the revenue. Therefore none of the officers referred to in the petition is shown to be falling within the classification mentioned in section 123 (7) of the Act. It was also urged that the various officers and officials of the various departments were helping respon- denl-1 in making arrangements and providing facilities to respondent-1 at the time of the election. But the proviso to Section 123 (7) Act excludes all such acts from the category of corrupt practices. It was also urged that the various officers and officials of the various departments were helping respon- denl-1 in making arrangements and providing facilities to respondent-1 at the time of the election. But the proviso to Section 123 (7) Act excludes all such acts from the category of corrupt practices. Further the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses to the effect that the Government servants were making all arrangements and providing facilities to respondent-1 in connection with the election campaign, is not at all satisfactorily established and cannot be believed and accepted at all. Even assuming that such arrangements or facilities were being extended, it does not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (7 ). The petitioner himself after applying to the Superintendent of Police, Hassan, has taken the protection of the police officials during the time of the election. Therefore taking protection, for the purpose of campaign, even of the police officials, does not amount to a corrupt practice. Further the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses does not show what was the obligation taken by respondent-1 from the Government servants. As to whether the Government servants really prevailed upon the voters to vote for respondent-1, is not clearly established by the material on record. ( 44 ) THE allegation in the petition that respondent-1 got posted his relative officials in Holenarasipur Constituency, is not satisfactorily proved, ( 45 ) THE Election Petition does not show as to which are the key villages in which respondent-1 got posted the Government officials of his own choice. What is the nature of rigging resorted to by respondent-1 and his people, does not become clear. The petition does not mention as to in what village a particular community constituted a majority of the voters. Therefore the allegation of the petitioner that respondent-1 got posted as presiding Officers or polling officials persons belonging to a particular community in a particular booth where the people of that community were in majority, is rather too vague to be accepted. ( 46 ) FURTHER the petition does not show as to who were the officers of the choice of respondent-1. Simply alleging that respondent-1 and his people exercised under influence on the voters, is rather too vague. ( 46 ) FURTHER the petition does not show as to who were the officers of the choice of respondent-1. Simply alleging that respondent-1 and his people exercised under influence on the voters, is rather too vague. In respect of the allegation of undue influence, it must be clearly pleaded in the Election petition as to what was the nature of the undue influence exercised and on whom it was exercised and for what purpose it was exercised. The details of the undue influence, have not been mentioned at all. It is not mentioned clearly as to how respondcnt- 1 was able to dominate over the will of the voters or the public. As to how respondent-1 misused his position if at all he can be said to be in any position at the time of election, is not mentioned clearly in the petition. ( 47 ) IT has been laid down in Kona Prabbhakara Rao v M. Seshagiri Rao and another ( AIR 1981 SC 658 ). In para 3 it is stated as:- "there is absolutely no allegation in the pleadings to show that at any time after having filed his nomination papers, the appellant made any efforts to seek the assistance of Tahsildar Narasimharao in furthering his election prospects or in any way helping him to win the election. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the election petitioner failed to prove the allegations of corrupt practice alleged against the appellant. " ( 48 ) IT has been stated in Surinder Singh v hardial Singh and Others ( AIR 1985 SC 89 ) as:-"it is well settled that allegations of corrupt practice are quasi criminal charges and the proof that would be required in support of such allegations would be as in a criminal charge. Charges of corrupt practice are to be equated with criminal charges and proof thereof would be not preponderance of probabilities as in civil action but proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal trials. " ( 49 ) IT has been laid down in Hardwari Lal v Kanwal Singh ( AIR 1972 SC 515 ), in para 18 as:- "therefore, material facts are to be alleged as to whether the candidate obtained or procured or abetted or attempted to obtain or procure any assistance other than the giving of votes. " ( 49 ) IT has been laid down in Hardwari Lal v Kanwal Singh ( AIR 1972 SC 515 ), in para 18 as:- "therefore, material facts are to be alleged as to whether the candidate obtained or procured or abetted or attempted to obtain or procure any assistance other than the giving of votes. In paragraph 16 of the Election Petition it is alleged that the appellant committed the corrupt practice of obtaining and procuring or attempting to obtain and procure assistance for the furtherence of the prospects of his election from the persons mentioned there. Reading paragraph 16 of the election petition one will search in vain to find out as to whether the allegations against the appellant are in regard to the assistance under both heads or either head from each of the six persons mentioned there. One will speculate as to whether the appellant obtained and procured or attempted to obtain and procure assistance from each or some of the persons mentioned there. Obtaining or procuring or attempting to obtain or procure assistance are separate and independent forms of corrupt practice. One will guess as to whether the allegations are that the appellant committed all or one or more of the corrupt practices of obtaining, procuring, attempting to obtain or procure assistance from each of the persons mentioned there. One will also conjecture and hazard as to what assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure from each of the persons mentioned there, for the furtherence of the prospects of that candidate's election. The giving of vote is nor within the mischief of corrupt practice. It cannot be understood from the petitioner whether the giving of vote is the assistance alleged. It is, therefore, apparent that the appellant who was charged by the election petitioner with corrupt practice should be told in the election petition as to what assistance is sought. The type of assistance, the manner of assistance, the time of assistance, the person from whom assistance is sought are all to be set out in the petition. There is no allegation in the petition about the actual and the specific assistance with which the appellant can be charged in violation of the provisions of the Act. The type of assistance, the manner of assistance, the time of assistance, the person from whom assistance is sought are all to be set out in the petition. There is no allegation in the petition about the actual and the specific assistance with which the appellant can be charged in violation of the provisions of the Act. Nor is there any statement in the election describing the manner in which the prospects of the election were furthered and in the way in which the assistance was rendered. The allegations against the appellant were in relation to six persons. Therefore, it was essential and imperative for the election petitioner to set out with exactitude and precision the type of assistance as also the manner in which assistance was obtained or procured from each person. The time, the date and the place of the assistance were also required to be set out in the particulars. Thus it had to be alleged as the material facts as to what assistance the appellant obtained or procured or abetted or attempted to obtain or procured from which person and how the assistance furthered the prospects of the appellant's election. If all the four variants and ingredients were to be charged against the appellant these had to be set out as statements of material facts in relation to each person. " therefore it becomes clear from the said decisions that the entire particulars of the assistance by obtaining or procuring or attempting to obtain or procure the assistance of the various Government servants and the particulars of the acts of corruption must be pleaded and mentioned in the Election Petition with exactitude and all details. If no such details are given, then it does not amount to an Election Petition at all and it cannot be said to contain the cause of action at all. Therefore such a bald election petition without giving the particulars and details of the various acts of corruption, bribery and misdeeds, will be in violation of Section 83 of the Act. Therefore such a bald election petition without giving the particulars and details of the various acts of corruption, bribery and misdeeds, will be in violation of Section 83 of the Act. ( 50 ) IT has been further laid down in daulat Ram Chauhan v Anand Sharma ( AIR 1984 SC 621 ), that the necessary particulars, the statement of facts and essential ingredients and direct and detailed nature of corrupt practice and details of every important particular giving the time, place, names of persons, use of words and expressions, must be mentioned in the election petition. Otherwise it does not amount to an election petition at all and it does not amount to a cause of action within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act. According to the said decision, it must be also mentioned that the said corrupt practices were either perpetrated by the candidate himself or by his agent with his consent and knowledge. ( 51 ) THE Supreme Court had again an occasion to consider this aspect of the matter in azhar Hussain v Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1986 sc 1253 ). It has been clearly stated by the supreme Court in the said decision as:-"an election petition can be and must be dismissed under the provisions of Civil procedure Code if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 to incorporate the material facts and particulars relating to alleged corrupt practice in the election petition are not complied with. The Code of Civil procedure applies to the trial of an election petition by virtue of Section 87 of the Act. Since C. P. C. is applicable, the court trying the election petition can act in exercise of the powers of the Code including Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 1 rule ll (a ). Therefore that Section 83 does not find a place in Section 86 of the act which authorises dismissal of election petition in certain contingencies does not mean that powers under the C. P. C. cannot be exercised. Therefore that Section 83 does not find a place in Section 86 of the act which authorises dismissal of election petition in certain contingencies does not mean that powers under the C. P. C. cannot be exercised. An election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the Civil P. C. and it is settled law that the omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and that an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all. "further in the said case it has been made clear that the material facts and particulars regarding corrupt practice must be pleaded with exactitude and all the details and even the time, place and nature of the corrupt practice must be pleaded specifically in the petition. Otherwise it does not amount to a cause of action at all and it would not be an election petition within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act. ( 52 ) THE learned counsel Shri Shivappa contended that even though all the details might not have given in the election petition, if the parties have adduced the evidence, then it will not be fatal to the election petition at all. The said contention of the learned counsel Shri Shivappa runs contrary to the mandates contained in Section 83 of the Act. When there are ne allegations made in the petition as required by Section 83, it is not open to the parties to supplement them by leading the evidence. What is not pleaded cannot be allowed to be proved by evidence at all. He relied for that purpose on M. Chenna Reddy v V. Ramachandra Rao and another (Vol 40 Election Law Reports, page 390 ). But in view of the subsequent decision above referred to, this ruling stands repealed by the Supreme Court in Surinder singh v Hardial Singh and others (A. I. R 1985 s. C. 89 ). He relied for that purpose on M. Chenna Reddy v V. Ramachandra Rao and another (Vol 40 Election Law Reports, page 390 ). But in view of the subsequent decision above referred to, this ruling stands repealed by the Supreme Court in Surinder singh v Hardial Singh and others (A. I. R 1985 s. C. 89 ). Therefore, as already stated above, the alleged corrupt practices mentioned by the petitioner in para VI of the election petition, to be found on pages 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, do not meet the requirements laid down by section 83 of the Act and the various rulings of the Supreme Court. Therefore taking this view, the election petition so far as it relates to the corrupt practices mentioned in para vi of the election petition, merits to be dismissed. ( 53 ) IN para VII, the petitioner has stated as:-"the election of respondent-1 is also liable to be declared as void as he has committed corrupt practice and undue influence under Section 123 (2) of the Act, by himself through his election agent or any other person with his consent and knowledge for the furtherence of the prospects of his election and to prejudicially affect the election prospects of the petitioner, imposed restraint on the will of the electorate, and used such devices to prevent the electorate from doing what they wish to do or faced to do what they did not want to do and thus interfered with the free exercise of the electorate right. " ( 54 ) THIS portion of the petition allegation is nothing but reproduction of Section 123 of the Act. Simply repeating of the words of that Section does not amount to a proof of the matters required to be proved by making allegations in the petition and by leading evidence. In para VII (1) the petitioner alleged that respondent-1 for bettering his election prospects and respondent- I's people with his consent and knowledge, threatened the voters of the Constituency such as weaker sections of the people and minorities with the object of preventing them from exercising their free electoral right. In para VII (1) the petitioner alleged that respondent-1 for bettering his election prospects and respondent- I's people with his consent and knowledge, threatened the voters of the Constituency such as weaker sections of the people and minorities with the object of preventing them from exercising their free electoral right. According to the petitioner, various types of threats were practiced throughout the Constituency and the threat to electorate was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, and Superintendent of police, Hassan, with a copy to the Election commission on 28-2-1985. ( 55 ) WHAT is the nature of the threat given to the voters, is not made clear at all. To whom the threat was given, is not mentioned in the petition. Harijan community consists of lakhs and lakhs. As to which of the harijan voters were threatened and how their will was dominated, has not been made clear in the election petition. Who are the people belonging to the weaker sections, is not mentioned in the election petition at all. Who are the minorities, is not mentioned in the election petition. The nature of the threat, and the time and the nature of the threat, are not mentioned in this connection at all. Therefore such an allegation contained in para VII (1) of the petition, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 83 or section 123 (2) of the Act. ( 56 ) THE word 'undue influence" has been defined in Section 123 (2) of the Act. It reads as:-"under influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right: provided that - (a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who- (i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and excommunication or expulsion from any caste or community; or (ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause. "simply stating that the voters were threatened, docs not amount to a corrupt practice or the exercise of undue influence. The threat that is alleged must be a threat with an injury of some kind. There is no allegation either in the petition or in the evidence that the voters were threatened with any injury at all. Therefore, it does no! amount to any undue influence within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act. ( 57 ) THE allegations in para VII (2) to (21) of the petition that the various contractors and the Government servants were the supporters of respondent-1 and his son in booth no. 47 Halekote, booth No. 23 Atti Chow- denahally, booth No. 29 Chakanahally, booth no. 31 Hariharapura, booth No. 32 Dod- dakunche, booth No. 33 Kodihally, booth no. 39 Beechenahally, booth No. 45 haradanahally, booth No. 48 Angarahally, booth No. 49 Hanumanahally, booth No. 50 kamasarnudra, booth No. 52 Padavala hippe, booth No. 62 Marayanayakanahally, booth No. 5, Doddakerc, booth No. 9 Yeliyur, booth No. 35 Dindegcnahally and Kalenahalli villages and that they threatened the voters and prevented them from coming to the booths for exercising votes, suffer from the vice of insufficiency. As to who arc the voters that were threatened and in what place they were threatened and what was the nature of the threats given and how they were prevented from coming to the booths and how they were prevented from entering the booths and exercising the votes, arc not mentioned and by what specific persons they were threatened or influenced, have not been spared specifically in the election petition. The claim of the petitioner that some of his agents were not permitted to remain inside the booth and some of them were threatened and some of them were necked out of the booth, is not supported by any satisfactory evidence on record at all. ( 58 ) THE allegation that large number of votes were cast by impersonation, is not satisfactorily proved. The petitioner docs not claim to have seen the casting of the votes by impersonation. The other witnesses examined do not specifically state as to who exercised the votes by impersonation. ( 58 ) THE allegation that large number of votes were cast by impersonation, is not satisfactorily proved. The petitioner docs not claim to have seen the casting of the votes by impersonation. The other witnesses examined do not specifically state as to who exercised the votes by impersonation. Simply stating that a large number of votes were cast by impersonation by the supporters of respondent-1, does not amount to any specific allegation within the meaning of the act at all. So far as the impersonation of votes is concerned, it does not amount to an act of corruption. It may be an act of improper reception of the votes, and that has not been properly proved in this case. ( 59 ) THEREFORE, under these circumstances, the various allegations made in the election petition, do not amount to a compliance with the mandates laid down by Section 83 of the Act. Thus it is not an election petition at all. On account of the lack of particulars required to be given, the present election petition is not competent and it merits to be dismissed. ( 60 ) NOW I will proceed to discuss the evidence on the merits of the contentions with reference to the evidence adduced by the parties in the case. ( 61 ) ISSUE No. 1 is the general issue covering as to whether respondent-1 is guilty of corrupt practice and has indulged in bribery. Issue No. 2 relates to the publication of a news item in Occam Herald and other english papers and vernacular papers on the eve of the election that the Janata party would sell rice at Rs. 2/- per K. G. as against the market price of Rs. 51- to Rs. 10/- per k. G. , to the weaker sections, Harijans and other minorities, and that 10 K. Gs. of rice would he supplied at the said rate every month to each family of the weaker section and that 2 pairs of sarees and blouses would he supplied to every woman belonging to weaker section per year and that two pairs of dhoties and kurtas would be supplied to every man of weaker section for Rs. 20/- and that loans to women entrepreneures would he made available without security and at subsidised rates of interest. It is not properly proved at all. 20/- and that loans to women entrepreneures would he made available without security and at subsidised rates of interest. It is not properly proved at all. The papers that arc said to contain the said publications are not produced. As to who published the said news items in the said English and other vernacular papers, does not become clear from the evidence of the petitioner or other materials placed by him at all. One B. L. Shankar, Janata party Secretary is said to have advertised the said news item on the eve of the. election. The printer or the publisher of the various papers that published the said news item, have not been examined. What was the text of the news, does not become clear at all. Therefore in the absence of the examination of the printers and the publishers and the correspondents of the various newspapers, it would be difficult to accept the said contention of the petitioner. Further even assuming for a moment that any such publication was made by the Janata party, it would amount to a promise to supply the bare necessities to the common man. At the most it would amount to advertising a public policy to be implemented by the Janata party if it is returned to power. Section 123 (2) (b) of the Act reads as:-"a declaration of public policy, or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this clause. "therefore even if such a declaration was made by the Janata parly on the eve of the election, it was only a declaration of the public policy or a promise of public action which would be undertaken by it if it is returned to power. It is not as if such a promise was made only to persons who would vote for the Janata party. Such a promise was meant to be for the benefit of the people belonging to the weaker sections and Harijan community and other Backward communities irrespective of the fact whether they vote for the petitioner or respondent-1 or respondent-2 or the Congress party or any other candidate. Therefore it cannot be said to be a promise made only with the object of wooing the electorate. Therefore it cannot be said to be a promise made only with the object of wooing the electorate. As it is a declaration of public policy or a promise or a public action, which would be undertaken by the janata party if it is returned to power, it will not amount to a corrupt practice or bribery. Therefore my finding on issue No. 2 is in the negative. The petitioner contended that on the eve of the election it was declared by the Janata party that Karnataka should be governed from Karnataka but not from Delhi. It cannot be forgotten that ours is a Democratic state and it is more or less a federal structure consisting of various States. Every State as envisaged by the Constitution has been given certain autonomous powers, and it can discharge those functions quite independently and without any interference from the central Government. Therefore what that news item speaks is that the administration in karnataka should be carried on in Karnataka itself but without any mandates from Delhi. It only reflects the federal structure of our constitution. It does not create any hatred or disaffection against the Central Government. It does not in any way affect the unity or integrity of the Nation. Such statement only emphasi/es the federal structure of the constitution binding on all the States and the central Government. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that such a contention affected the National unity and integrity, cannot be accepted at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 3 is in the negative. ( 62 ) THE case of the petitioner that respondent-1 appealed to the feelings of the voters on the ground of caste, creed and community, is not satisfactorily established by any evidence on record. Even the petitioner himself does not state clearly on this issue. His witnesses do not speak about it. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent-1 got transferred the Tahsildar Abdul Jabbar and p. S. I. Sheriff and others. Merely because the tahsildar Abdul Jabbar and the P. S. I. Sheriff, Holenaras ,ur, are Muslims, it does not mean that he appealed to the Muslim voters in the name of the religion. The petitioner has not stated anywhere in his evidence that he respondent No. 1 appealed to the voters at any time in the name of the religion, caste or creed. The petitioner has not stated anywhere in his evidence that he respondent No. 1 appealed to the voters at any time in the name of the religion, caste or creed. The petitioner's witnesses do not speak anything about it at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 18 is in the negative. ( 63 ) FOR the reasons already stated above, issue Nos. 5 and 6 are answered in the negative. ( 64 ) THE petitioner has stated that respondent-1 had prevailed on the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police and other police officers not to lend protection to the petitioner and his people even in case a complaint was made by them. On the other hand, the petitioner himself has given an application Exhibit P19 dated 22-2-1985 to the superintendent of police to give him protection in order to enable him to start his election campaign at Dandiganahalli. On that very day the Superintendent of Police made an Endorsement as per Exhibit P19 (a) giving police protection to him subject to the payment of cost as per Rules. Exhibit P20 is a challan showing that he deposited Rs. 324/- for the police protection to be given to him, exhibit P21 dated 25-2- 1985 is given by the petitioner for extending the police help for four more days. Exhibits P21 (a) and (b) are the Endorsements made by the Superintendent of Police giving extension of police protection to the petitioner. Exhibit P22 is also a challan showing that the petitioner deposited Rs. 432/- as the cost of the police protection. This goes to belie the evidence of the petitioner that respondent-1 had prevailed upon the Superintendent of Police not to give any protection to the petitioner, except the bare ipse dixit of the petitioner, there is no evidence to show that respondent-1 had prevailed upon the Superintendent of Police not to give any protection to the petitioner. On the other hand, the station house diaries Exhibits P24 to P29 also would go to show that whenever complaints were filed, the police took action on them and have made entries in the station house diaries at Exhibits P24 to P29. The relevant entries made in Exhibits P24 to P29 relate to petty offences. As they are non-cognizable offences, naturally the police could not investigate into the non-cognizable offences. The relevant entries made in Exhibits P24 to P29 relate to petty offences. As they are non-cognizable offences, naturally the police could not investigate into the non-cognizable offences. Thus these circumstances would belie the story of the petitioner that respondent-1 had prevailed upon the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, Hassan, and other police officers, not to lend protection to the petitioner and his people even in the event of any complaints being made by them against respondent-1 and his people. Hence my finding on issue No. 7 is in the negative. ( 65 ) THE petitioner stated in most general and vague terms that the polling staff and the counting staff and the Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer acted as agents of respondent-1 on the date of the polling and on the date of counting, and assisted him in rigging the ballot papers in various polling stations and assisted him in the manipulation of votes (vide para 92 of the petitioner's evidence ). He also stated that in the course of counting, the votes cast in his favour were counted in favour of respondent- 1 and that the votes though cast in favour of the petitioner were rejected as invalid and that the votes though invalid in respect of respondent-1 were counted in his favour. It is not established by any satisfactory material on record. The counting agents of the petitioner who were admittedly at the counting tables, have not been examined at all. Neither the petitioner nor his agents have given any application to the Returning Officer making such complaints on the date of counting. Therefore it is too late in the day for the petitioner to make such allegations at this stage. Exhibit D11l is a copy of the order passed by the Returning Officer on an application filed by the petitioner before him on 6-3-1985 at 4-00 p. m. A perusal of that order Exhibit D11, would only go to show that what the petitioner apprehended was that he suspected the genuineness of the votes polled at Dindiganahalli hobli in favour of the Janata party and suspected bogus votes cast in favour of the Janata party. He requested by that petition to investigate into the matter. He requested by that petition to investigate into the matter. The Returning Officer has clearly passed an order that the petition in question was filed after the completion of counting and no such complaints were received on 5-3-85 during the hours of polling or in the course of counting. It makes clear that the deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of police visited most of the polling stations in the Constituency including dindiganahalli hobli. It says that even the observer appointed by the Election Commissioner had visited many a polling station and according to the Returning Officer no such complaints were received by any one of the polling stations. Therefore he rightly rejected that complaint filed by the petitioner in respect of which the present order Exhibit Dll has been passed. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P17 stating that it is a copy of the complaint sent by one mariveerappa to the Home Minister and others. That Mariveerappa has not been examined. Even the person who has attested to the thumb of Mariveerappa, has not been examined. The petitioner has no personal knowledge about the assault on Mariveerap pa. Therefore the contents in Exhibit P17 that on 2-3-1985 at about 10-00 p. m. Krishnamurthy lawyer and Kadalappa and basappa and Rudrappa trespassed into his house and kidnapped him and fined him Rs. 101/- and recovered that fine amount, are not at all established in this case. Even the petitioner does not speak on oath about this incident in detail. Therefore Exhibit P17 will not help him in the least. Exhibit P32 is a book showing the orders passed appointing the Presiding Officers and the Polling Officers. There is nothing in it to indicate that respondent-1 had any hand in the appointment of the Presiding Officers and the Polling Officers. Exhibit P55 is the copy of the application said to have been given by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, hassan, praying that the additional security arrangement should be made in 18 specific booths. Exhibit P55 (a) is the Endorsement by the Headquarters Assistant to the deputy Commissioner. There is no satisfactory evidence adduced by the petitioner to show that such additional security force as demanded by him in Exhibit P55 was not provided. Exhibit P55 (a) is the Endorsement by the Headquarters Assistant to the deputy Commissioner. There is no satisfactory evidence adduced by the petitioner to show that such additional security force as demanded by him in Exhibit P55 was not provided. He has produced the certificate of posting Exhibit P55 (b) to show that he sent similar petitions to the Election Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, superintendent of Police and the Returning Officer, holenarasipur. If he had personally handed over such an application to the Deputy Commissioner containing the Endorsement Exhibit P55 (a), it is rather difficult to believe that he would have sent another copy of the same to the Deputy Commissioner. Except exhibit P55 (b), there is no material to show that copies of such applications were sent to the Election Commissioner or the Superintendent of Police or the Assistant Returning officer, Holenarasipur. The petitioner has produced a copy at Exhibit P58 addressed to the Election Commissioner, Bangalore. It is dated 28-2-1985 It reads about the assault and hindrances caused by respondent-1 and his people and has sought for additional security in 16 places. Exhibit P58 is in the original handwriting itself. The signature of the petitioner in it is in an ink different from the one used for writing the application. Therefore it is rather unsafe to place any reliance on Exhibit P58. If any such application had been sent by the petitioner to the election Commissioner, there was no difficulty or impediment in his way of calling for the original itself. Therefore Exhibit P58 appears to have seen the light of the day for the first lime while it was produced in the Court. The petitioner sought to place reliance on exhibit P66 i. e. Lankesh Palrike dated 24-3-1985 in order to show that rigging had taken place and voting by impersonation had taken place. The printers and the publishers of that Lankesh Patrike Exhibit P66, are not examined. The correspondent who sent that news, has not been examined. Therefore the simple production of Lankesh Patrike would not amount to a proof of the contents. D. Ramu P. W. 14 who claims to be the counting agent of the petitioner, stated that a large number of votes were cast by impersonation and that the polling officials encouraged the casting of votes by impersonation. He claims that he was working as a supervisor of the petitioner in the Assembly election. D. Ramu P. W. 14 who claims to be the counting agent of the petitioner, stated that a large number of votes were cast by impersonation and that the polling officials encouraged the casting of votes by impersonation. He claims that he was working as a supervisor of the petitioner in the Assembly election. He claims to have visited nearly 9 villages on the date of the election. According to him, he was finding a large number of votes being cast by impersonation in the said 9 booths, he has not given any complaint to the presiding Officer or to any one. He has not given any application affixing the stamp to the Presiding Officer. He has not given any complaint in writing to any one till today. He does not claim to have informed the petitioner about it while the voting was going on. He is interested in the petitioner therefore it is rather unsafe to accept the discrepant, unnatural, and incredible evidence of Ramu P. W. 14. The evidence of P. V. Narayana P. W. 19 is a carbon copy of the evidence of the petitioner. His evidence that all the Government officials were working as the agents of respondent-1 on the date of voting and on the date of counting, does not inspire any confidence at all. He has not lodged any compliant to the Presiding Officer in the matter. He has not given any complaint to any authority concerned in the matter. He has not given any compliant regarding the method of counting even to the Returning officer on the date of counting. He claims to have visited certain booths and claims to have found out rigging and casting of votes by impersonation. But in view of the fact that he has not made any complaint as provided by law and in view of the fact that he is deeply interested in the petitioner, it will not be proper, to act upon such discrepant evidence. He admits that he purchased 1 acre 34 guntas in N 181 holenarasipur from his brother s children for Rs. 8. 000/- on 4-11-1971 as per Exhibit d6 and that he sold the same on 15-11-1971 hardly within 11 days for Rs. 15,000/- as per exhibit D7. This would go to show as to what sort of person he is. He admits that he purchased 1 acre 34 guntas in N 181 holenarasipur from his brother s children for Rs. 8. 000/- on 4-11-1971 as per Exhibit d6 and that he sold the same on 15-11-1971 hardly within 11 days for Rs. 15,000/- as per exhibit D7. This would go to show as to what sort of person he is. Therefore, undet these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept his evidence. The assertions of the petitioner and his witnesses that the polling staff and the counting staff and the Assistant returning Officer and the Returning Officer acted as agents of respondent-1 on the date of polling and on the date of counting and assisted him in rigging and in the manipulation of votes, are not proved. Hence my finding on issue No. 4 is in the negative. ( 66 ) IT has been shown above that the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses that respondent-1 by wielding influence got transferred many a Government servant or official of his confidence to the various places in Holenarasipur Constituency on the date of polling and on the date of counting, is absolutely without substance and appears to be the result of the fertile imagination of the petitioner. The various transfer orders already referred to above and mentioned in the various transfer orders are either long before the nomination paper was filed by the petitioner and respondent-1 and some times even as long back as 1983 and 1984 itself. It has come in the evidence of the petitioner himself that nearly 90 per cent of the polling officers that worked in Holenarasipur Constituency and 90 per cent of the officers that worked in Holenarasipur Constituency at the time of counting in the Parliament election in december 1984 itself continued to be in holenarasipur Constituency even on the day of polling and counting of the Assembly election held in March, 1985. Therefore the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses and the documents produced by the petitioner in his attempt to show that all or sizable number of officers and officials were got posted by respondent-1 at the time of the election in March 1985 to better his election prospects, cannot be beheved and accepted at all. Therefore my findings on issue Nos. 8, 9,10 and 11 are in the negative. 66 (A ). Therefore my findings on issue Nos. 8, 9,10 and 11 are in the negative. 66 (A ). Issue No. 12:- the petitioner's say that respondent-1 and his people got enrolled a large number of minors and the dead persons and the persons who had left Holenarasipur Constituency long before and who were residing outside holenarasipur, as voters either in the voters' list or in the additional voters' list, is rather hard to believe. As to who are the minors that were enrolled as voters and as to who are the dead persons whose names were enrolled as voters and as to who are the persons that had left Holenarasipur long before and are residing elsewhere, is not spoken to specifically either by the petitioner or his witnesses. Simply stating that the names of the minors and the names of the dead persons and the persons that had left Holenarasipur, were enrolled as voters in the additional voters' list, is not correct and sufficient and it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show as to who were the minors that were enrolled as voters and as to who were the dead persons that were enrolled as voters and as to who were the persons that had left Holenarasipur and were living elsewhere and have been enrolled as voters. Nothing of the sort has been done, except stating in a very bald manner. He has examined one Bhujangaiah P. W. 1 to show that though he had given an application to enter the name of his daughter Vinoda as a voter in the voters' list, it was not entered. He stated that he had given the applications of some 5 to 6 persons as they were eligible voters. But, according to him, they were not entered. He has admitted in his cross-examination that his daughter Vinoda is even now 16 years old. This is nothing but an attempt on his part to get enrolled a minor daughter of his own as a voter. This shows the depraved character of Bhujangaiah p. W1. Neelakantaiah P. W. 4 in para 2 of his deposition has stated that as some 150 people had not been entered in the voters' list, he got about 150 application forms filled up and signed by those eligible voters and gave them in the Municipal office. This shows the depraved character of Bhujangaiah p. W1. Neelakantaiah P. W. 4 in para 2 of his deposition has stated that as some 150 people had not been entered in the voters' list, he got about 150 application forms filled up and signed by those eligible voters and gave them in the Municipal office. He claims to have received Endorsements from the town Municipal Council for having handed over the said applications. He had produced exhibits P1 to P6 as the Endorsements. But exhibits P1 to P6 appear to have been addressed to (1) Rajaiah, (2) Lakshmamma, (3) venkatesh, (4) Devamma, (5) Nobalkumari, and (6) Shivanna. They do not speak about he nature of the applications given. There is nothing in them to show that they refer to the alleged applications given for enrolment. They do not in the least show that they were given by P. W. 4 Neelakantaiah. None of those 150 persons whose applications are said to have been given for enrolment, has been examined by the petitioner. Therefore the evidence of Neelakantaiah P. W. 4 is one made to order and is not at all truthful. His evidence, in my opinion, is highly discrepant, unnatural and untruthful and one made to order for the purpose of this case. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept his evidence. The evidence of the other witnesses examined by the petitioner that a large number of persons who are minors or who were dead or who had left the village, were enrolled as voters in the additional voters' list, cannot be believed and accepted even for a moment, because they do not give the names of those alleged minors and those alleged dead persons and those alleged persons who had left holenarasipur taluk. With reference to the additional voters' lists, neither the petitioner nor his witnesses speak as to which of them is a minor and which of them is dead and as to which of them had left the place. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P9 alleged to be the certified copy of the School admission register relating to (1) Vedavati, (2) Ramesh (3) Kantamma, (4) Rangaswamy and (5) Kumaraswamy and (6) Shivanna. The dates of birth show that the said persons were minors on the date of the election. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P9 alleged to be the certified copy of the School admission register relating to (1) Vedavati, (2) Ramesh (3) Kantamma, (4) Rangaswamy and (5) Kumaraswamy and (6) Shivanna. The dates of birth show that the said persons were minors on the date of the election. Exhibit Pll is the extract of the admission register issued by the Head Master, Government Primary Girls' School, Holenarasipur. It relates to (1) Choodamani, (2) H. N. Vasanta, (3) H. N. Latha, (4) P. Kalpana, (5) narasamma, (6) Pushpavathi, (7) R. Manjula (8) H. S. Rukmini (9) H. N. Vedavati (10) C. Yeshodamma (11) J. Gayitri (12) K. V. Srimati (13) S. Mamata (14) R. Ratna (15) gowramma (16) R. Lakshmi and (17) A. M. Kusumavati. The dates of birth mentioned against each of them show that they were minors on the date of the election. Exhibit p15 is the additional voters' list of Atti chowdanahalli booth to which Vantiguddakaval, kamenahalli, Kurubarahalli and kurabarahalli Koppalu, are attached. The petitioner and his witnesses have not stated with reference to Exhibit P15, as to which of them is a minor or is dead or is a person that has left Holenarasipur taluk. Further there is nothing to show that any one of the persons mentioned in Exhibit P15 exercised the vote on the date of voting. Similar is the case with the additional voters' list Exhibit P16, exhibit P65 is the additional voters' list relating to Padavalu Hippe. Similar is the fate with the same also. Exhibit P68 is the voters' list relating to Chowlaga and other villages, similar is the fate with the same also. Exhibits P70 to P116 are the copies of the school admission registers relating to various persons. Exhibits P117 to P122 are the transfer certificates showing the dates of birth. There is nothing in the said School admission registers or transfer certificates like Exhibits p9, Pll, P79 to P116, P117 to P122 to indicate that the names mentioned in them are the very persons mentioned in the additional voters' lists or enrolled as voters in the additional voters' lists. It may be that the School admission registers and the transfer certificates are public documents and the certified copies are relevant and admissible in evidence. The admissibility and relevancy is something different. It may be that the School admission registers and the transfer certificates are public documents and the certified copies are relevant and admissible in evidence. The admissibility and relevancy is something different. It will have to be shown that the persons mentioned in the School leaving Certificates and the transfer certificates and the birth and death certificates are the very same persons whose names have been entered in the voters' list or the additional voters' list. It has been clearly laid down in Hemanta kumar Das v Alliantz Insurance Company (A. I. R. 1938 Calcutta, 120, on page 124) as :-"it was suggested on behalf of the defendants that these entries refer to the assured and his daughter and wife, and show that he could not have been of the age stated by him. In my opinion they cannot be accepted without evidence of identification, and are not sufficient in law without such evidence of identification to establish the defendants' case. As was held in (1718) 1 E. R. 1501 (Draycott v talbot)) entries of the names of persons in a register of births or deaths or marriages cannot be positive evidence of the birth, death or marriage of such persons unless their identity is fully proved; see also Woodroffe's Law of evidence, Edn. 9 at page 394. "the learned author Shri Sarkar in his commentary on the evidence Act, Vol. I, 13th edn. has clearly stated on page 458 as:-"entries in registers of births, deaths or marriages cannot be positive evidence unless the identity of the persons is fully proved. "the learned author has further stated on page 729 as:-"a certified copy of the entry of registration of a deed at a registry office is admissible under Sections 74 and 77 as proof of the entry, but not of the contents of the deed. "in the Evidence Act of A. I. R. Manual, 4th Edition, Volume 17, on page 522, it is dearly stated that though the entries in register of births, deaths or marriages or school admission register or transfer certificates are admissible, they cannot be treated as positive evidence, unless the identity is proved. The learned Author Shri Sarkar in the said Evidence Act has referred to Phipson on Evidence, 8th edition, page 356 and also taylor's Evidence Section 1610 - 59 and 1784-1784 (a ). The learned Author Shri Sarkar in the said Evidence Act has referred to Phipson on Evidence, 8th edition, page 356 and also taylor's Evidence Section 1610 - 59 and 1784-1784 (a ). Merely because some of the names in the additional voters' list might appear to be the same as the ones found in the School Admission registers and the transfer certificates, it does not follow that the persons mentioned in the School leaving certificates or the transfer certificates have been enrolled as voters, because the identity is not established at all in this case. Further there is no material to show that respondent-1 or his people had any hand in the enumeration of the voters even at the time of the preparation of the additional voters list. Merely because the additional voters lists have been prepared by the authorities concerned (who have been authorised to prepare the additional voters' list) on the eve of the election, it does not mean that respondent-1 or his people got them prepared. The evidence that while preparing the additional voters list, the provisions of the Conduct of Election Rules were not followed by the authorities concerned, hardly inspires any confidence. Merely because respondent-1 has succeeded in the election, it does not mean that the officers or the officials were his pliable agents. In our Country even till today we are not driven to raise an inference that the Government servants act irresponsibly and dance to the tunes of the persons in power or Ministers concerned. A Government servant is presumed to be honest till it is proved to the contrary. Therefore the allegation of the petitioner that all the Government servants colluded with respondcnt-1 and his people and enrolled ineligible voters, is nothing but a cry in wilderness. There is no material to show the same. His contention that no Notification had been issued fixing the date calling applications for enrolment and fixing the date for filing objections and fixing the date for hearing and disposal, cannot be believed and accepted at all. The law presumes that the authorities act honestly and conduct themselves in accordance with law. The petitioner and his witnesses have not placed any material to show that any rules prescribed for preparation of the voters' list or the additional voters' list have not been complied with by the authorities concerned. The law presumes that the authorities act honestly and conduct themselves in accordance with law. The petitioner and his witnesses have not placed any material to show that any rules prescribed for preparation of the voters' list or the additional voters' list have not been complied with by the authorities concerned. A simple negative evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses that the rules prescribed were not complied with, is not entitled to be accepted and believed at all, because there is no satisfactory material to support this contention. Hence my finding on issue No. 12 is in the negative. ( 67 ) THE above discussion would go to show that all the alleged transfers are prior to the date of the nomination filed by the petitioner and respondent-1 or any one of the contesting candidates. It becomes clear from the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses themselves that 80 to 90 per cent of these very officials were also serving in holenarasipur Constituency even at the time of the Parliamentary election held in December, 1984. Those very officials continued in holenarasipur Constituency even at the time oi the Assembly election held in March, 19s5. It is undisputed that heads of many janata candidates who had been elected to i he Assembly rolled at the time of the Parliamentary election. It has come in evidence that out of 28 Parliamentary scats in Karnataka, Congress-I secured 24 seats and janata hardly secured 4 seats. When the congrcss-1 won 24 seats out of 28 seats in the parliament election, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Government servants colluded with the Congress-1 party. Merely because the Janata party has now won the election from Holenarasipur Constituency and has been returned to power in Karnataka, one cannot jump to the conclusion that all the Government servants are rogues, unreliable persons, untrustworthy persons and corrupl persons and have done the acts unbecoming of the Government servants. The allegation made by the petitioner, in my opinion, has no basis at all and it appears to be nothing but the result of a frustrated mind. Hence issue Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are answered in the negative. The allegation made by the petitioner, in my opinion, has no basis at all and it appears to be nothing but the result of a frustrated mind. Hence issue Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are answered in the negative. ( 68 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondent-1 and his people got enrolled nearly 7,900 and odd votes most of them ineligible persons, in collusion with the Revenue Inspectors, Village Accountants and tahsildars. The petitioner wants to make a reference to this figure, 7,900 and odd because, according to him Congress-I had secured nearly 7,900 votes more than ones secured by the other nearest candidate from Holenarasipur constituency at the time of Parliamentary election. Merely because the Congress-I led by 7,900 votes in Holenarasipur Constituency, at the time of Parliamentary election, it would be too hazardous for any person to say that the additional voters' lists were prepared on the eve of the Assembly election to enroll atleast as many as 7,900 votes in order to see that the Janata party could manoeuvcr to get those votes in their favour. There is no evidence to show the same at all. Therefore my finding on issue No. 16 is in the negative. ( 69 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondent-1 got appointed K. L. Ramaswamy, k. M. Kalegowda, B. C. Krishnappa, and another Ramaswamy, Kalappa Gowda, nanjegowda and another Nanjegowda as Presiding officers in the various booths, in order to get their assistance on the date of the polling and in order to see that they helped him on the date of polling in casting votes by impersonation. According to the petitioner, K. M kalegowda and some others arc the relations of respondent-1. Respondent-1 has denied that relationship. The petitioner does not know personally about the alleged relationship spoken to by him. On the date of the polling, no complaint in writing had been given to the Presiding Officer or to any officer or to the Deputy Commissioner or to the Election Commissioner or to any one complaining that the Presiding Officers were in league with respondent-1 and his people and the Presiding Officers and the other polling officials helped respondent-1 and his people in the casting of votes by inpersonation. The evidence of the petitioner a. i his witnesses on this point is extremely vague and unsatisfactory. The evidence of the petitioner a. i his witnesses on this point is extremely vague and unsatisfactory. Therefore my finding on issue No. 23 is in the negative. ( 70 ) THE petitioner stated that rigging and voting by impersonation took place on large scale in polling station Nos. 3, 4, 7, 10,11,23, 33, 34, 45, 52, 84, 94, 96, 97, 109, 117 and 125 and other booths. The evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses is only to the effect that large scale exercise of votes by impersonation took place in the said polling booths and other booths. Such a vague allegation cannot be made a safe basis for the conclusion. In order to prove casting of votes by impersonation, evidence must be led before the Court to show as to which person cast the vote of what person by impersonation. Simply stating that hundreds of votes were cast by impersonation, docs not prove that there was any voting by impersonation. This is rather too reckless an allegation that can be made in a Democratic set up of the society. The law provides that if the votes are cast by impersonation and if the real voters come lateron, the real voters can exercise their votes by tender by giving an application to that effect. If any such application is given by the real voter, it would be enquired into by the polling officers and the Presiding Officer and if it is found that his vote has been cast by impersonation, they would permit him to exercise a tendered vote. No such application has been given in any one of the booths. Admittedly, the petitioner had got his polling agents in all these booths. The evidence that his polling agents in large number of these booths were not permitted to remain inside the booths or they were necked out or were assaulted, is rather too hard a story to believe. It is not as if the petitioner was novice in polities. He has been in politics, even according to his own admission, from 1958. He is a seasoned politician. He admits that he had given instructions to all his agents as to what were their rights and duties and as to what they should do if any votes by impersonation had been cast. He has been in politics, even according to his own admission, from 1958. He is a seasoned politician. He admits that he had given instructions to all his agents as to what were their rights and duties and as to what they should do if any votes by impersonation had been cast. If, notwithstanding these instructions, his polling agents did not take any action, it only means that the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses does not inspire any confidence in the matter. The petitioner was not informed by any one of his polling agents about the casting of votes by impersonation till the voting was over. The petitioner does not inform any authority in writing about the exercise of votes by impersonation till he filed the election petition. None of his agents has complained about it. Therefore the petitioner's case that large scale rigging took place and large number of votes have been cast by impersonation by respondent-1 and his supporters in large number of booths including the said ones, cannot be believed and accepted at all. The evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses that they orally informed the presiding Officer about the exercise of votes by impersonation and the Presiding Officer asked them to remain quiet, cannot be believed and accepted. It was open to him to file an application with a stamp and to leave a protest in the matter. They were not dumb spectators on behalf of the petitioner. They were persons well instructed by the petitioner as to what steps they should take in such cases. The non-taking of any steps, makes their evidence rather unsatisfactory and unacceptable. Hence my finding on issue No. 24 is in the negative. In view of the said discussion issue No. 25 is also answered in the negative. ( 71 ) THE petitioner has stated in para VI (13) of his petition and also in the course of his evidence that respondent-1 got posted the village Accountant Devarajegowda as a counting assistant, and the Lecturer dasegowda as counting assistant at table no. 3, and Rajegowda as counting official at table No. 5, and Devarajegowda as counting agent at table No. 6, and Ramaswamy as counting assistant at table No. 7, and javaregowda as counting assistant at table no. 3, and Rajegowda as counting official at table No. 5, and Devarajegowda as counting agent at table No. 6, and Ramaswamy as counting assistant at table No. 7, and javaregowda as counting assistant at table no. 8, and Hanumanthegowda as counting assistant at table No. 4, and C. R. Ramegowda as counting assistant at table No. 11, and the assistant Engineer Sri Chandrashekaraiah and one Govindaraju as counting assistants at table No. 15, and P. Thimmegowda as counting assistant at table No. 16, and H. S. Puttaswamygowda as counting agent at table no. 17, and Kapanigowda, Kodigowda and giddegowda as counting assistants at table no. 18, and Rajegowda and Kallegowda as counting assistants at table No. 19, and papegowda as counting assistant at table no. . 20. The preparation of list of officers and officials to be posted for counting is prepared by the Returning Officer. They are allotted particular tables well in advance. The list of the polling officials and the presiding Officers would have been prepared well in advance vide Exhibit P123. None of the candidates would have any hand in the preparation of that list. There is nothing to show that the said counting officials were proposed by respondent-1 or were got appointed by respondent-1 or were appointed at the instance of respondent-1. Merely because at some of the tables, rcspondent-1 might have secured more votes, it does not follow that manipulation was done at those tables by the counting officers. In some ul the tables, the petitioner admittedly has secured more votes. It does not mean that the counting officials at those tables were hand in gloves with the petitioner. The petitioner has no personal knowledge in the matter. His evidence, more or less, is inferential. Narayan P. W. 19 speaks about the alleged manipulation of the votes and the alleged defects in the counting. He admittedly has not brought it to the notice of the Returning Officer or any one of the officers either orally or in writing. He has not complained in writing to any one about it. He has not given any complaint in writing to the petitioner. He claims to have informed about it to the petitioner only lateron. This aspect of the story appears to have seen the light of the day while filing the election petition. He has not complained in writing to any one about it. He has not given any complaint in writing to the petitioner. He claims to have informed about it to the petitioner only lateron. This aspect of the story appears to have seen the light of the day while filing the election petition. As already stated above, the evidence of Narayan P. W. 19 sounds highly unnatural, discrepant and unbelievable. The evidence of the other witnesses on this point, does not inspire much confidence. The evidence of the petitioner and Narayan P. W. 19 that the counting was done in great haste and that they had not sufficient scope to observe the counting or observe the ballot papers, cannot be believed, because they have not made any complaint at that time to any one including the counting officers. Their evidence that many a vote cast in favour of the petitioner was treated as a vote in favour of respondent-1, cannot be accepted because they do not give the particulars of those ballot papers and they do not even say how many ballot papers marked in favour of the petitioner were counted in favour of respondent-1. Their evidence does not establish satisfactorily that some genuine votes cast in favour of the petitioner were wrongly treated as invalid. The description of those ballot papers and the number of those ballot papers, have not been given, their evidence that while bundling more than 50 ballot papers were being bundled as against the requirement of 50 per bundle in respect of the petitioner, and that in the cast of respondent-1 less than 50 ballot papers were put in the bundle as against the requirement of 50, is rather too hard to believe. They have not complained about it to the counting officer or the Returning officer or the Assistant Returning Officer or any of the observers that visited the counting hall. They do not even state specifically as to how many votes marked in favour of the petitioner were treated in favour of respondent-1. They do not state even by proximation as to how many votes cast in favour of the petitioner were wrongly treated as invalid. They do not state as to how mam bundles pertaining to respondent-1 contained less than 50 ballot papers. They do not state as to how many bundles relating to the petitioner contained more than 50 ballot papers. They do not state even by proximation as to how many votes cast in favour of the petitioner were wrongly treated as invalid. They do not state as to how mam bundles pertaining to respondent-1 contained less than 50 ballot papers. They do not state as to how many bundles relating to the petitioner contained more than 50 ballot papers. Therefore the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses in this connection, is extremely vague, baseless, discrepant and unworthy of any credence. Hence my finding on issue No. 26 is in the negative. ( 72 ) THE petitioner stated that the Executive engineer Krishnappa, and the Superintending Engineers and the Assistant engineers enrolled as many as not less than 700 to 800 persons as contractors in hemavati project on the eve of the election and that all those contractors were enrolled so as to induce them to canvass for respondent-1 and to induce the voters and the wage earners or coolies to vote for respondent-1. The petitioner has produced a list of contractors. Simply stating that some of them were enrolled as contractors, it does not mean that they were under the obligation of any one. The evidence of respondent 1 goes to show that the work of excavation of the channel had to be done on quicker and top priority basis, in order to save the water for Karnataka. Hence the work was being entrusted to the contractors on piece work system. The system of giving the work on piece work system had been envisaged during regime of the Congress-I Government itself. That was continued even thereafter. Therefore if in the interest of finishing the excavation of the channel work early some contractors were appointed, it does not mean that they were under the obligation of respondent-1. Merely because respondent-1 is a P. W. D. and Irrigation Minister and merely because the contractors were enrolled as contractors in Hemavati project, it would be too far fetched to contend that all the contractors or majority of them or some of them were enrolled as contractors at the behest or at the direction of respondent-1. The petitioner in that connection relied on exhibits P59 to P62. Exhibits P59 and P60 are the two applications given by one Raju to respondent-1 who was working as a Minister for Irrigation, requesting that they may be given work on piece work system. The petitioner in that connection relied on exhibits P59 to P62. Exhibits P59 and P60 are the two applications given by one Raju to respondent-1 who was working as a Minister for Irrigation, requesting that they may be given work on piece work system. Respondent-1 admits the Endorsements made by him on those applications on 14-4-1984 and 13-4-1984 for consideration of the said two applications. Respondent-1 has stated that the said applications were given to him in his capacity as a Minister and he forwarded them to the authorities concerned for consideration and disposal according to law. Exhibit P61 is an application by guruvareddy praying for giving work on piece work system. Respondent-1 admits that he sent that application to the authorities concerned. That Endorsement appears to be dated 12-10-1984. The applicant himself has not put any date on it. Therefore it is much prior to the election. Exhibit P62 is an application given by one satarvalli to respondent-1 to entrust some work to him on piece work system. It is forwarded by respondent-1 to the Executive engineer on 12-10-1984 i. e. long prior to the election. Respondent-1 has made it clear that not only he, but all the Legislators are approached by people for giving some work to them and whenever such applications are given, he and the other Legislators who receive such applications send them to the authorities concerned for consideration and disposal according to law. Merely because they forward them to the authorities concerned for consideration and disposal according to law, it does not mean that any direction was issued by them to give work to them. Therefore even the Endorsements made by respondent-1 at Exhibits P59 (a), p60 (a) and P61 (a) and P62 (a) do not mean that the contractors mentioned therein were appointed at the dictation of respondent- 1. As already stated above, Exhibits P59 and p60 are dated 14-4-1984 that is nearly one year before the election. Exhibit P61 is of october 1985 which is much after the election. The said applicants Raju, guruvareddy and Satarvalli themselves are not examined. As to why they were not examined, has not been explained by the petitioner. It is really strange that the petitioner should come into custody of these applications. Exhibit P61 is of october 1985 which is much after the election. The said applicants Raju, guruvareddy and Satarvalli themselves are not examined. As to why they were not examined, has not been explained by the petitioner. It is really strange that the petitioner should come into custody of these applications. The explanation given by him that the said applicants gave those applications to him stating that they had asked for piece work contract, but their cases have been recommended for some job, does not appear to be correct in view of the endorsement made therein itself. Therefore, the non-examination of the said applicants, and the petitioner coming into custody of those documents in an inexplicable manner, makes the said documents highly suspicious. Even assuming that respondent-1 had recommended that the said applicants should be given work on piece work system, it is long prior to the election and as already stated above, if it is long prior to the date of election, it will not amount to any act of corruption or bribery within the meaning of section 123 of the Act. Hence my finding on issue No. 27 is in the negative. ( 73 ) AS already stated above, except ipse dixit of the petitioner, there is nothing to show that the said contractors referred to by him, were got appointed by respondent-1 much less in order to get their help at the time of election. As to when they were enrolled as contractors, has not been spoken to by the petitioner in the election petition or in the course of the evidence. Even the list of the contractors got produced by the petitioner, does not show that they were appointed on the eve of the election. The Endorsement made therein relates to 531 contractors. The endorsement made thereon shows that the list is from the date 1-4-1984 to 5-3-1985. The dates of enrolment are not mentioned. Therefore the material particulars as required by Section 83, have not been mentioned in the petition and also in the course of the evidence. There is nothing to show that the said contractors in any way helped respondent-1. Hence my finding on issue No. 28 is in the negative. ( 74 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Deputy superintendent of Police Nanjundegowda was got posted to Arsikere Division which includes Holenarasipur Constituency also. There is nothing to show that the said contractors in any way helped respondent-1. Hence my finding on issue No. 28 is in the negative. ( 74 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Deputy superintendent of Police Nanjundegowda was got posted to Arsikere Division which includes Holenarasipur Constituency also. According to him, the said Nanjundegowda was got posted to Arasikere Sub Division as he had got a lot of relatives in Holenarasipur constituency. According to him, respondent-1 got him transferred so that he should work for him in the election. According to him, Jagadeesh Sub Inspects was similarly got transferred to Channarayapatna, with a view to help respondent-1 at the time of election. Neither the allegationin the petition nor his evidence shows as to whether the said Nanjundegowda and jagadeesh worked for respondent-1 therefore my finding on issue No. 29 is in the negative. ( 75 ) THE above discussion would go to show that the petitioner has failed to show that respondent-1 and his agents or his people threatened any voters belonging to weaker sections and the minorities or Harijan community or threatened any voters and prevented them from coming to the booth and exercising the votes. Hence my finding on issue No. 30 is in the negative. ( 76 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and Narayan P. W, 19 stated that Patel Kadalappa belonging to janata party who was a contractor, threatened many a voter at the instance of respondent-1. The petitioner has no personal knowledge about it. Narayan P. W, 19 who claims to have gone to Halekote had no work there at all in the booth. Why he should go to that booth, is not made clear. if he had really seen Kadalappa threatening many a voter, he would have lodged a complaint with the Presiding Officer or with the authorities concerned. Nothing of the sort has been done by him. The presence of narayan P. W. 19 at the time of the alleged incident, is highly improbable and cannot be believed. Therefore the petitioner has failed to prove that Patel Kadalappa threatened many a voter at the instance of respondent-1. Hence my finding on issue No. 31 is in the negative. Nothing of the sort has been done by him. The presence of narayan P. W. 19 at the time of the alleged incident, is highly improbable and cannot be believed. Therefore the petitioner has failed to prove that Patel Kadalappa threatened many a voter at the instance of respondent-1. Hence my finding on issue No. 31 is in the negative. ( 77 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and Nagaraj P. W. 18 stated that Gangadhara, P. W. D. Contractor and small scale industrialist supported by respondent-1, dragged the petitioner's agent Raja Setty from the polling station an held out threats to the voters of the village. As can be seen from the evidence of the petitioner, he does not appear to be present at the time of this alleged incident. One cannot understand as to why Nagaraj should be present there at that time. That Raja Setty himself has not been examined. No explanation much less plausible for his non- examination, has been tendered. No complaint in that connection was given to the Presiding Officer or to any officer on that day. Therefore the petitioner has failed to prove the present incident. Hence my finding on issue No. 32 is in the negative. ( 78 ) THE petitioner in a vague way has stated that large number of Presiding Officers and counting officials and the polling officials hailed from Holenarasipur taluk and were in one way or the other related to respondent-1. Even assuming for a moment that some of them hailed from Holenarasipur Taluka, it does not mean that respondent-1 had any hand in getting them posted to holenarasipur taluk. The evidence of the petitioner does not satisfactorily show that any one of the officials even remotely helped respondent-1 on the polling day or on the counting day. As to who are the relatives and as to how they are related to the respondent No. 1 has not been explained by the petitioner. It is too vague an allegation to be safely acted upon at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 33 is in the negative. As to who are the relatives and as to how they are related to the respondent No. 1 has not been explained by the petitioner. It is too vague an allegation to be safely acted upon at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 33 is in the negative. ( 79 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 has stated that a. E. O. Ramachandra and Head Master nanjundaswamy and Puttaswamygowda working in the Health Department were the natives of the very village wherefrom respondent-1 hailed and that they were appointed as members of the polling staff with the knowledge and consent of respondent-1 and large scale rigging took place and out of 1017 votes 862 votes were polled in favour of respondent-1 and that the voters belonging to weaker sections were prevented from exercising the votes. After all, popularity of a person would be much more in his own village. If a candidate secured more votes in his own village, it does not mean that any rigging took place or any votes have been cast by impersonation. In some booths, the petitioner has also secured nearly 80 to 90 per cent. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that a large number of votes cast in his favour in those booths were due to any mal practices. Merely because respondent-1 has secured nearly 80 to 90 per cent in some booths, one cannot jump to the conclusion that rigging has taken place in those booths or the votes have been cast by impersonation. The evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses that threats were given to the voters in those booths, is not satisfactory and cannot be accepted. Hence my finding on issue No. 34 is in the negative. ( 80 ) WHILE discussing the evidence relating to the preparation of additional voters lists, it is shown that the petitioner has failed to show that the persons working outside holenarasipur taluk and living in Bangalore and Audugodi and many weavers working in bangalore and Audugodi were included in the additional voters' lists much less at the instance of Gangadhar and respondent-1. Hence my finding on issue No. 35 is in the negative. ( 81 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and Nagaraj P. W. 18 stated that there were repetitions of names in the voters' lists. Hence my finding on issue No. 35 is in the negative. ( 81 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and Nagaraj P. W. 18 stated that there were repetitions of names in the voters' lists. Except stating so they have not been able to point out with reference to the voters lists the names of the persons said to be so repeated more than once in the voters lists. A simple vague allegation that the names of some persons are repeated cannot be inferred from the fact that same names appear at different serial numbers. In our Country there are hundreds and thousands of people and hundreds of persons in the same village bearing the same name. Therefore such a vague allegation and such a vague evidence of the petitioner and his witness Nagaraj P. W. 18, is not sufficient to show that the names of the same persons had been repeated more than once in the voters' list. Hence my finding ori issue No. 36 is in the negative. ( 82 ) THC evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses that the names of the persons who had left the village, had been enrolled as voters in the voters' list or the additional voters' list and that their votes had been cast by impersonation, cannot be believed. They have not given the names of the persons who had left the village and whose names were enrolled as voters. Their evidence does not show that the votes of such persons even if enrolled had been cast by impersonation by any one. Therefore my finding on issue No. 37 is in the negative. ( 83 ) THE evidence of the petitioner P. W. 30 and his witness Shivananjaiah P. W. 20 that in polling station No. 29 Chakanahalli, kalegowda and Patel Swamygowda and motegowda and Patel Swamygowda's son who is a contractor threatened and sent out the petitioner's agent Ramegowda out of the polling station and made their own hench men to cast the votes by impersonation, is not supported by any independent and reliable evidence. They have not stated as to whose votes were cast by whom. They have not given any complaint to the Presiding officer. No complaints have been lodged in this connection. Therefore, under these circumstances, the said story cannot be believed and accepted at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 38 is in the negative. They have not stated as to whose votes were cast by whom. They have not given any complaint to the Presiding officer. No complaints have been lodged in this connection. Therefore, under these circumstances, the said story cannot be believed and accepted at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 38 is in the negative. ( 84 ) THE evidence of the petitioner P. W. 30 and Shivananjaiah P. W. 20 and Patel ayyannagowda P. W. 6 that the petitioner's agent Nataraj was not allowed to enter the polling station by Shivaraj who is a contractor and relation of respondent-1, does not inspire any confidence. That nataraj himself has not been examined. No complaints have been given to the presiding officer or to any one on that day. This story appears to have seen the light of the day for the first time when the election petition was filed. Hence the petitioner has failed to make out this case also. Hence my finding on issue No. 39 is in the negative. ( 85 ) THE evidence of the petitioner P. W. 30 and Shivananjaiah P. W. 20 and Patel ayyannagowda P. W. 6 is to the effect that respondent-1's worker Shivaraj threatened the voters at Hariharapura polling station no. 31 and that the said Shivaraj got most of the votes of the minority community people exercised by proxy before the arrival of the real voters. They do not state as to whose votes were cast by impersonation. What was the number of votes that was cast by impersonation. No complaint has been made on that day regarding the alleged threats given by Shivaraj to the voters. None of the voters has been examined to show that they were threatened by Shivaraj on that day. It is always easy to make an allegation but difficult to prove. This allegation appears to be only a figment of imagination of the petitioner. There is no reliable evidence to prove that Shivaraj gave threats to any voters or got many a vote exercised by impersonation. Hence my finding on issue no. 40 is in the negative. It is always easy to make an allegation but difficult to prove. This allegation appears to be only a figment of imagination of the petitioner. There is no reliable evidence to prove that Shivaraj gave threats to any voters or got many a vote exercised by impersonation. Hence my finding on issue no. 40 is in the negative. ( 86 ) THE evidence of the petitioner P. W. 30 and Shivananjaiah P. W. 20 and Patel ayyannagowda is to the effect to respondent-1's brother Ramegowda and one subbaramu and one Ningegowda were obliged to respondent-1 and that they prevented the voters from coming to the booth and exercising the votes and that they cast their votes by impersonation. What are the names of the persons whose votes were exercised by others by impersonation and what is the number of votes exercised by impersonation and which of them cast the votes by impersonation, does not become clear from their evidence. They have not lodged any complaint in this connection to the Presiding Officer or to any one till now. This story appears to have seen the light of the day for the first time while" the election petition was filed. Thus, in my opinion, the petitioner has failed to make out this case also. Hence my finding on issue No. 41 is in the negative. ( 87 ) THE petitioner's say that the contractors like Haravegowda, Rangaswamy, ramegowda and Thammappa threatened the voters belonging to minority communities and weaker sections and Harijans and threatened them not to go to the polling station and threatened them to show the ballot papers, to the Janata party agent even if they went to the booth and that they cast large number of votes by impersonation, cannot be accepted. As to who are the voters belonging to the minority communities and weaker sections that were threatened and what is the number of the said persons, has not been explained by the petitioner and his witnesses. The evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses does not satisfactorily show that the said persons asked the voters to show the ballot papers to the Janata party agent before they went to the ballot box. There is no complaint lodged in this connection by the petitioner or his agent or any one on behalf of the petitioner. The evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses does not satisfactorily show that the said persons asked the voters to show the ballot papers to the Janata party agent before they went to the ballot box. There is no complaint lodged in this connection by the petitioner or his agent or any one on behalf of the petitioner. As to why no such complaint was made on that day, has not been explained by the petitioner. Therefore this case now tried to be made out, in my opinion, has seen the light of the day for the first time when the election petition was filed. It is always easy to make an allegation. But it is very difficult to prove the same. Hence my finding on issue No. 42 is in the negative. ( 88 ) THE petitioner stated that his agent appanna, son of Subbegowda, was threatened tw6 days prior to the polling by janata workers at the instance of respondent-1 and his people and that respondent- 1's supporters pelted stones and damaged his house. That Appanna himself has not been examined. There is no complaint lodged on that day. The witnesses to the said incident are not examined. The petitioner does not claim to be present when the said incident took place. Therefore, under these circumstances, the said incident is not proved by satisfactory and reliable evidence. Hence my finding on issue No. 43 is in the negative. ( 89 ) THE petitioner stated that on 6-3-1985 in doddakunche village, Janata workers with the knowledge and consent of respondent-1 went to Harijan colony and removed the taps and damaged the doors and roofs and caused injuries to one person. As can be seen from the evidence of the petitioner, he does not claim to be present at the time of the incident. Harijans whose taps were removed and whose doors were damaged and who was injured, has not been examined in the case at all. This appears to be a case concocted for the purpose of this petition itself. No complaint was made on that day. No independent evidence has been produced to prove this issue. Hence this incident is not proved. Hence my finding on issue No. 44 is in the negative. This appears to be a case concocted for the purpose of this petition itself. No complaint was made on that day. No independent evidence has been produced to prove this issue. Hence this incident is not proved. Hence my finding on issue No. 44 is in the negative. ( 90 ) THE petitioner's case of the minors being enrolled and fictitious persons being enrolled as voters, as already shown above, does not inspire any confidence and in my opinion it appears to be only a figment of imagination of the petitioner. This aspect of the story has been discussed above in greater detail. Hence my finding on issue No. 45 is in the negative. ( 91 ) THE petitioner stated that the votes of dead persons were got cast in favour of respondent-1 by impersonation. As to who are those dead persons and from what village they came and who cast their votes, has not been spoken to by the petitioner or any witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner himself has not stated with reference to the voters' list or the additional voters' list as to which of the persons mentioned in them are dead. His evidence does not show as to who cast the votes of those alleged dead persons. Therefore this case also is not made out by the petitioner by proper and satisfactory evidence. Hence my finding on issue No. 46 is in the negative. ( 92 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and nanjundegowda P. W. 10 stated that the contractors Huchegowda, Gangadhar, krishnegowda, Rajegowda and the various other contractors and the P. L. D. President nagaraj and many daily wage earners appointed under the said contractors, prevented the Harijans and the voters belonging to weaker sections from going to the booth and from exercising their votes. As to who were the persons that were threatened and as to what is the number of persons threatened and as to what is the number of the persons whose votes were cast by impersonation, does not become clear from the evidence of the petitioner and nanjundegowda and other witnesses examined by the petitioner. Hence this case is also not proved by the petitioner. Hence my finding on issue No. 47 is in the negative. Hence this case is also not proved by the petitioner. Hence my finding on issue No. 47 is in the negative. ( 93 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and thimmegowda P. W. 11 stated that the petitioner's booth supervisor Some Gowda, advocate, was dragged out from the booth and was not allowed to visit the polling station. It is rather extremely hard to believe. That Somegowda who is an Advocate and who is said to be driven out of the booth, is not examined. He has not lodged any complaint to the police. No complaints have been made by any one in this connection to any authority. The evidence of the petitioner and his witness Thimmegowda which is highly discrepant and unnatural and unusual in nature, cannot be believed and accepted at all. There is no reliable evidence to prove this case. Hence my finding on issue No. 48 is in the negative. ( 94 ) THE petitioner stated that in beechenahally polling station No. 39, contractor Shivanna and V. P. Member Raju and agriculturist Rudrappa who are all janata party workers, threatened his polling agent Venkata Subbaiah not to come in the way of the people exercising the votes by impersonation. That Venkatasubbaiah has not been examined. There is no other independent evidence to show the same. As can be seen from the evidence of the petitioner, he does not appear to be present at the time of the alleged incident. There is no other independent evidence to prove this incident. Hence my finding on issue No. 49 is in the negative. ( 95 ) THE case of the petitioner that the real voters were not allowed to come to the booth and that there was large scale rigging and exercise of votes by impersonation, is not satisfactorily proved, for the reasons already stated above. Hence my finding on issue No. 50 is in the negative. ( 96 ) THE petitioner stated that in polling station No. 45 which is the village of respondent-1, the petitioner's agent was kidnapped by the people of respondent-1 in a car on the election day in the morning. The person said to be Kidnapped, has not been examined. There is no complaint lodged in that connection. P. W. 6 as can be seen from his evidence, has no personal knowledge. His evidence on the point is hearsay. The person said to be Kidnapped, has not been examined. There is no complaint lodged in that connection. P. W. 6 as can be seen from his evidence, has no personal knowledge. His evidence on the point is hearsay. The evidence of P. W. 6 also is not satisfactory. The evidence of P. W. 6 is highly discrepant and interested and he appears to have a grievance against respondent-1. Hence there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the petitioner's agent was kidnapped by respondent-1's people on that day. Hence my finding on issue No. 51 is in the negative. ( 97 ) THE petitioner stated that respondent-1's brother Basavegowda and respondent-1's cousin Nanjegowda and respondent-1's brother-in- law Ningegowda and gangadharagowda and other contractors threatened large number of voters and did not permit them to exercise the votes. Reading of the evidence of the petitioner would show that he has no personal knowledge in the matter. The evidence of ayyannagowda P. W. 6 on the point appears to be hearsay. As to why he should be present in the booths at that time does not become clear. He has not given any complaint in this connection to any one. The evidence of P. W. 6 also does not inspire much confidence in this connection. The persons threatened and the persons who were prevented from exercising the votes, have not been examined. Even their names have not been given. Even their number has not been given. Hence the petitioner has failed to prove this aspect of the issue. Hence my finding on issue No. 52 is in the negative. ( 98 ) THE evidence of the petitioner that respondent-1 got posted one Nanjegowda to his own village as a polling officer, is not supported by any independent evidence. There is no material to show that respondent-1 had any hand in the appointment of the polling officers or in the posting of the polling officers. The voters from that village have not been examined. Therefore under these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove this case. Hence my finding on Issue No. 53 is in the negative. There is no material to show that respondent-1 had any hand in the appointment of the polling officers or in the posting of the polling officers. The voters from that village have not been examined. Therefore under these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove this case. Hence my finding on Issue No. 53 is in the negative. ( 99 ) THE evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses that respondent- 1 and his people induced and threatened the voters to exercise the votes in favour of the respondent-1, cannot be believed, as the voters who are alleged to be threatened and who were prevented from exercising the votes, have not been examined. Hence my finding on issue no. 54 is in the negative. ( 100 ) THE petitioner's case that in polling booth no. 48, Rangegowda and Mukunda and another Rangegowda and Patel Marigowda threatened the petitioner's agent thimmegowda and did not permit him to raise any objection and did not permit the voters to exercise the votes, is not spoken to by any other witness except the petitioner. As can be seen from the evidence of the petitioner, he has no personal knowledge regarding this aspect of the story in relation to polling booth No. 48. Therefore my finding on issue No. 55 is in the negative. ( 101 ) THE petitioner's case that respondent-1 got transferred one Shallappa, Assistant engineer, to Halekote, and he was got appointed as a Presiding Officer in polling station No. 48 by respondent-1 and that he helped the exercise of votes by impersonation in favour of respondent-1, is not supported by any other evidence in the case. Except the bare assertion of the petitioner, there is no other material to support this contention of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner in this connection, is rather unnatural, discrepant and quite unsafe to act upon, because he does not appear to have any personal knowledge about the so called transfer of Shallappa and the so called threat given by Shallappa and the so called assistance alleged to be given by shallappa in the exercise of the votes by impersonation. Hence my finding on issue no. 56 is in the negative. Hence my finding on issue no. 56 is in the negative. ( 102 ) THE petitioner stated that on 4-3-1985 janata party workers at the instance of respondent-1 in their attempt to scare the voters and in their attempt to prevent the voters from coming to the booth, assaulted the petitioner's people and damaged the petitioner's vehicle and assaulted the petitioner's followers. The persons who were threatened and the persons who were assaulted and the persons who were intimidated, have not been examined. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence to show that the petitioner's vehicle was damaged. Hence my finding on issue No. 57 is in the negative. ( 103 ) THE petitioner's case is that in polling station No. 49 Hanumanahally, the Assistant engineer Nanjegowda was got transferred by respondent-1 and was got appointed as a presiding Officer to Hanumanahally booth and that Lakkegowda and respondent-1's brother-in-law Ajjcgowda, Annegowda, sethigowda and many others joined together at the instance of respondent-1 and threatened the voters belonging to minority communities like Achars and Harijans and they even threatened them with danger to their life and property if they voted for the petitioner. Narayan P. W. 19 and the petitioner P. W. 30 make an attempt to give evidence to suit their case. The evidence of the petitioner is tainted and interested. He does not claim to have visited Hanumanahally booth on that day. It appears that narayan P. W. 19 had no work to go to thai booth Hanumanahally on that day. The number of the persons who were threatened and prevented from coming to the booth, has not been stated and the persons who were threatened with danger to the life and property, have not been examined. No complaint has been lodged in the case. Therefore, under these circumstances, issue no. 58 is answered in the negative. ( 104 ) THE case of the petitioner that manjegowda, Assistant Engineer, was got transferred by respondent-1, is not supported by any documentary evidence. The evidence of the petitioner on this point is highly interested and unsatisfactory. The appointment of the Presiding Officer is done by the office of the Election Commissioner. The office of the Election Commissioner is not subordinate to respondent-1 or the janata party President at the time of the election. The evidence of the petitioner on this point is highly interested and unsatisfactory. The appointment of the Presiding Officer is done by the office of the Election Commissioner. The office of the Election Commissioner is not subordinate to respondent-1 or the janata party President at the time of the election. The evidence of the petitioner and nanjundegowda P. W. 10 that Mudalagiri- gowda and his son and contractor Range- gowda at the instance of respondent-1, prevented the Harijans from voting and prevented several voters from exercising the votes, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the persons who were threatened and who were prevented from voting, have not been examined. Even the number of such persons is not given. No complaint appears to have been made to the Presiding Officer or any authority on that day. Therefore the said case cannot be believed and accepted at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 59 is in the negative. ( 105 ) IT has been shown above that the petitioner's case that many a person who were minors and who were dead and who had left Holenarasipur taluk, were enrolled as voters in Paduvalahippe and other villages and that the votes of such persons were cast by impersonation, is not satisfactorily proved by any independent and reliable evidence. The names of such persons who were ineligible and who were enrolled, have not been mentioned anywhere. I have already spoken about the effect of School admission registers and transfer certificates. The names of the persons whose votes were cast by others and the number of such persons, have not been given at all. Therefore this aspect of the story is not proved. Hence my finding on issue No. 60 is in the negative. ( 106 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and Narayan P. W. 19 and Thimmegowda stated that respondent-1 and his supporters wrote threatening letters to the petitioner and his supporters. No such letters have been produced. There is nothing to show that respondent-1 had anything to do with the writing of such letters. Hence my finding on issue No. 61 is in the negative. No such letters have been produced. There is nothing to show that respondent-1 had anything to do with the writing of such letters. Hence my finding on issue No. 61 is in the negative. ( 107 ) THE petitioner stated that in polling station No. 62 Maranayakanahalli, P. W. D. contractor Manjegowda and contractor naganna and Thimmegowda and rangegowda at the instance of respondent-1 prevented the Jogi community voters and harijans and Akkasaligas from exercising their votes and their votes were cast by impersonation. None of these voters has been examined. No complaint appears to have been made on that day. This story appears to have seen the light of the day for the firs time when the election petition was filed. There is no reliable and Satisfactory evidence to prove this aspect of the story. Hence my finding on issue No. 62 is in the negative. ( 108 ) EXCEPT the bare and tainted testimony of the petitioner, there is no evidence to show that Manjegowda is well disposed to respondent-1 and that Manjegowda exercised many a vote by impersonation in favour of respondent-1. The names of those persons whose votes were exercised by impersonation in favour of respondent-1, have not been mentioned. There is no other independent evidence to show that Manjegowda exercised any votes by impersonation. No complaint appears to have been lodged in that connection. Therefor my finding on issue No. 63 is in the negative. ( 109 ) THE petitioner and his witnesses stated that Basappa and Annaiah who were working in Lift Irrigation Scheme threatened the voters that they would not allow the water to their lands if they did not vote for respondent-1. Those persons who were threatened, have not been examined. No complaint appears to have been made on that day. There is no satisfactory evidence to show that they exercised the votes of any other person by impersonation. Hence my findings on issue Nos. 64 and 65 are in the negative. ( 110 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and Devarajegow- da P. W. 27 stated that in Doddakarade village polling station No. 5, Junior Engineer Krish- nappa and Ningappa, Shivalingappa, Dhar- manna, Manjunath, arranged a feast on 4-3-1985 for the polling staff and extracted a promise from them that they would help respondent-1. It is not proved by any satisfactory evidence. It is not proved by any satisfactory evidence. The evidence of devarajegowda and the petitioner in this connection, is rather too wild an allegation and appears to be concocted one for the purpose of this case. Their evidence that the voters were even threatened, is not proved by any material. The voters who have been threatened, have not been examined. B. C. Krishnappa, Junior Engineer, is said to be posted there as a Presiding Officer. It is not shown that respondent-1 had any hand in it. Hence my finding on issue No. 66 is in the negative. ( 111 ) THE petitioner stated that his agent yoganna was beaten by respondent-1's people in the r orning of 5-3-1985. It was a voting day. If such an incident had taken place, many people would have seen the same. No independent witness has been examined. Even that Yoganna has not been examined. Hence the said incident is not proved by satisfactory and reliable evidence. Hence my finding on issue No. 67 is in the negative. ( 112 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and devarajegowda P. W. 27 stated that in polling station No. 9 Yeliyur, respondent-1's relation kalappa Gowda, Presiding Officer, allowed rangappa and Chandrau, Janata party workers, to cast votes by impersonation, in favour of respondent-1. It is rather only a guess work. As to whose votes were cast by impersonation and what is the number of votes cast, is not spoken. No complaint appears to have been filed in this connection to any one till the election petition is filed. Hence my finding on issue No. 68 is in the negative. ( 113 ) EXCEPT the bare, interested and self serving testimony of the petitioner, there is no evidence to show that some persons exercised votes by impersonation 10 to 12 times. The petitioner's case that when the real voters came to the booth after 12-00 noon, they were sent out on the ground that their votes had already been cast and that the petitioner's agent was not even allowed to raise objection and he was necked out, is only a matter of guess work. The voters that were threatened and sent back, have not been examined. Their names are not given. Even the petitioner's agent who according to the petitioner was not allowed to raise objection and who was necked out, has not been examined. The voters that were threatened and sent back, have not been examined. Their names are not given. Even the petitioner's agent who according to the petitioner was not allowed to raise objection and who was necked out, has not been examined. Hence my finding on issue no. 69 is in the negative. ( 114 ) EXCEPT the self serving and unsatisfactory evidence of the petitioner, there is no evidence to show that respondent-1 and his workers and nine P. W. D. contractors freshly enlisted as contractors, threatened the christian and Harijan voters and assaulted devaraja of Chennapura village and Surest of Anekere village and that the petitioner's agent was thrown out from the booth. The christian and Harijan voters who were threatened, have not been examined. Devaraja and Suresh who were assaulted, have not been examined. The petitioner's agent who was thrown out of the polling station, has not been examined. Therefore this issue is not proved. Hence my finding on issue No. . 70 is in the negative. ( 115 ) THE petitioner stated that while he was in the course of his election campaign, respondent-1's supporters attacked the petitioner in Kalenahalli village at about 9-00 p. m. on 22nd February, 1985, and damaged his car. No other witness from Kalenahalli has been examined. The relations between the petitioner and respondent-1 have been strained ever since 1984. If his car was damaged and if the petitioner was attacked, the petitioner would not have remained quiet. As can be seen from para 63 of his evidence, it is his supporters that gave the complaint Exhibit P10. Nagaraj P. W. 7 who is the author of that complaint, says that a case is pending in the court of the J. M. F. C. Channarayapatna. According to him, even revanna- respondent-1's son along with others, was responsible for that incident. But that Revanna has not been included as an accused in the case. Therefore his evidence cannot be believed and accepted at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 71 is in the negative. ( 116 ) THE petitioner stated that respondent-1 and his people circulated false rumours with the sole object of assassinating the character of the petitioner and impaired his prospects in the election. Therefore his evidence cannot be believed and accepted at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 71 is in the negative. ( 116 ) THE petitioner stated that respondent-1 and his people circulated false rumours with the sole object of assassinating the character of the petitioner and impaired his prospects in the election. I have already spoken about the pamphlets and newspapers in detail and have shown as to how respondent-1 and his people are not responsible for it at all. The evidence of P. Ws. 4, 6, 14 and 19 about respondent-1 and his people reading out the pamphlets and the newspapers, is not at all satisfactory. If they were really present at the time of the alleged false publication, they would not have remained quiet. They would have protested against it. Nothing of the sort has been done by them. The said publication is either much prior to the filing of the nomination papers or after the election. Therefore this case is also not satisfactorily proved by the petitioner. Hence my findings on issue Nos. 72 and 73 are in the negative. ( 117 ) THE petitioner and Krishnegowda P. W. 13, Nanjundegowda P. W. 10, H. K. Nagaraj p. W. 7 and Abdul Rahaman P. W. 2 stated that respondent-1 and his people distributed liquor, food and money to the voters, in order to secure their votes. They are deeply interested in the petitioner. If respondent-1 and his people had distributed the liquor, food and money freely, they would not have failed to lodge a complaint on that very day. Nothing of the sort has been done by them. This aspect of the story appears to have seen the light of the day for the first time when the election petition was filed. Hence this aspect of the story, is not proved by the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt by any reliable evidence. Hence my findings on issue Nos. 74 and 75 are in the negative. ( 118 ) SO far as the arrangement of conveyance to the voters is concerned, there is no satisfactory proof at all. The number of vehicles engaged, has not been given. Even the petitioner does not speak about it. Therefore, my finding on issue No. 76 is in the negative. 74 and 75 are in the negative. ( 118 ) SO far as the arrangement of conveyance to the voters is concerned, there is no satisfactory proof at all. The number of vehicles engaged, has not been given. Even the petitioner does not speak about it. Therefore, my finding on issue No. 76 is in the negative. ( 119 ) THE petitioner P. W. 30 and Narayan p. W. 19 and Ramu P. W. 14 stated that the petitioner's counting agents were not allowed to sit near the counting staff or the Returning Officer. The petitioner, on the other hand, has stated that his counting agents and other counting agents were at each counting table. The counting agents of the petitioner who are said to have not been allowed to sit near the counting staff or the Returning Officer, have not been examined. Therefore it is too much for the petitioner to make a grievance about it. This grievance has been made for the first time when the election petition is filed. No complaint has been lodged in that connection to any authority. Therefore this aspect of the story is not proved. Hence my finding on issue No. 77 is in the negative. ( 120 ) THE grievance of the petitioner and his witnesses is that the counting hall hardly measured 20' x 50' and it was very small to accommodate the people. According to them, it was in violation of the Rules and regulations. No such case was made out to the Returning Officer on the date of counting. No complaint appears to have been made in this connection to any one. As to what Rules and Regulations and instructions have been violated, are not made clear at all. Hence my finding on issue No. 78 is in the negative. ( 121 ) THE petitioner tried to state that in polling station Nos. 3, 4,, 7, 10, 11, 23, 33, 34, 45, 52, 84, 94, 96, 97, 109, 117, and 125 and other booths where more than 90 per cent of the polling took place, he requested the counting officials to keep aside the votes and his request was refused. It is no doubt true that Election Commission has issued instructions that as far as possible the votes in booths where more than 90 per cent have taken place should be kept aside. It is no doubt true that Election Commission has issued instructions that as far as possible the votes in booths where more than 90 per cent have taken place should be kept aside. But under the peculiar circumstances where the candidate has got better influence and where no untoward incident is alleged to have taken place, they need not be kept aside. Further there is nothing to show that the petitioner or his agent or counting agents made any request to keep aside the votes or to make a recount in this petition. Hence my finding on issue No. 79 is in the negative. ( 122 ) THE petitioner stated that he was not made aware of the preparation of the additional voters' lists and they were not made available to him. Except the evidence of the petitioner, there is no other evidence to support this contention. He himself has stated that he got the additional voters' list by 15th. Therefore this contention has no merit at all. Hence my finding on issue no. 80 is in the negative. ( 123 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, respondent-1 and his people falsely made a propaganda that the petitioner had milled 5,000 bags of paddy after bringing it from shimoga and retained the old rice and supplied the new rice in its place to the government. He also made a grievance that the allegation was made by respondent-1 and his people that he (petitioner) had obtained vanaspati licence in the name of his son and had sold it making a profit of Rs. 2 lakhs per year. According to him, the allegation made by the petitioner regarding the acquisition of the land in Darkast is false. Respondent-1 has stated that he has not made any such allegations against the petitioner. Except the evidence of the petitioner and his couple of witnesses, there is no satisfactory and reliable evidence to show that respondent-1 and his people carried out any such propaganda against the petitioner. Hence the grievance of the petitioner, in this connection, appears to be far fetched and appears to be one concocted for the purpose of this case and it has no basis at all. ( 124 ) THE petitioner has prayed for recounting of the votes. No such request was made by him on the date of the counting. Hence the grievance of the petitioner, in this connection, appears to be far fetched and appears to be one concocted for the purpose of this case and it has no basis at all. ( 124 ) THE petitioner has prayed for recounting of the votes. No such request was made by him on the date of the counting. No such application was made to the Returning officer on the date of the counting. Recounting would be granted only on good grounds being available for believing that there has been a mistake on the part of the returning Officer or the counting officials. Initially, the necessary allegations like the irregularities, illegalities, mistakes or defects in the course of the counting, must be pleaded specifically in the petition. No such specific case has been made out in the petition. The Court should find out next as to whether the petitioner has placed the necessary and prima facie evidence to prove the allegations made in the petition. As already stated above, the case of the petitioner that large scale rigging took place and that large number of votes were cast by impersonation and that the voters were threatened and that the counting was not done properly, has been all disbelieved, therefore prima facie evidence to prove any one of the allegations necessary to order recount has not been adduced in this case, (page 155 of the book by Chowla 'elections Law and Practice, 3rd Edition', and Smt. Siimitra Devi v Sheo Shankar prasad Yadav and Others, A. I. R. 1973, S. C. 215, Shashi Bhushan v Balaraj Madhok, a. I. R. 1972 S. C. 1251, Sharada Devi v krishna Chandra, A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 1569, arunkumar Bose v Mohd. Furkan Ansari, a. I. R. 1983 S. C. 1311, Beliram v Jai Behari lal, A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 283, Chanda Singh v shiv Ram Vanna and Others, A. I. R. 1975 s. C. 403, A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 693 (S. Baldev singh v Teja Singh Swatantra ). Therefore the petitioner has failed to make out any case requiring reinspection and recount. Hence my finding on issue No. 81 is in the negative. ( 125 ) THE petitioner has failed to show large scale rigging or the casting of votes by impersonation. He has failed to show that the voters were threatened or prevented from going to the booth. Hence my finding on issue No. 81 is in the negative. ( 125 ) THE petitioner has failed to show large scale rigging or the casting of votes by impersonation. He has failed to show that the voters were threatened or prevented from going to the booth. He has also failed to show that the votes of the minors and dead persons and the persons who had left the village have been exercised by respondent-1 or his people. Therefore he is not entitled to the exclusion of the votes. Hence my finding on issue No. 82 in the negative. ( 126 ) FOR the reasons already stated above, he is not entitled to get the votes marked in favour of respondent-1 in polling station Nos. 23,47, 29, 32, 33, 39, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 62, 5, 9, and 35 excluded. Hence my findings on issue Nos. 83 and 84 are in the negative. ( 127 ) FOR the above reasons, the petitioner has failed to prove that the election of respondent-1 to the Karnataka Assembly from Holcnarasipur Constituency suffers from any illegality, irregularity or defect or anything of the sort. Hence the election of respondent-1 is not liable to be set aside. Hence my finding on issue No. 85 is in the negative. ( 128 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to a declaration that he is duly elected. ( 129 ) THE petitioner has not shown that any person is guilty of any malpractice or corrupt practice or bribery or any illegal act or irregular act. Hence the question of naming any person does not arise. Hence my finding on issue No. 87 is in the negative. The learned counsel Shri Shantaraj prayed for award of exemplary and compensatory costs in this case. Merely because the petitioner has failed to prove his case, respondent-1 is not entitled to compensatory or exemplary costs. ( 130 ) IN the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed. ( 131 ) THE petitioner and respondent-1 were bosom friends and were close associates in all the political activities till 1984. They were an inseparable pair till 1984. They fell out for the first time for political reasons from 1984. It is said that there is nothing like a permanent friendship or permanent enemity in politics. The friends have become foes now. They were an inseparable pair till 1984. They fell out for the first time for political reasons from 1984. It is said that there is nothing like a permanent friendship or permanent enemity in politics. The friends have become foes now. Therefore it is not proper to add salt to the injury by the award of costs. Therefore, under these circumstances, I think that the interest of justice would be met if all the parties are ordered to bear their own costs in this case. Rs. 2,000/- deposited by the petitioner in this case are ordered to be returned to the petitioner or his counsel.