JUDGMENT - M.M. Qazi, J.:---The petitioner was a candidate for the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Election of Adyar Constituency No. 144 held on 27-2-1990 along with respondent Nos. 1 to 26. The respondent No. 27 was the Returning Officer of the said election. The polling of the said constituency was over on 27-2-1990 at 5-00 P.M. Counting of votes started on 1-3-1990 at 8-00 A.M. and completed on 2-3-1990 at about 8-00 A.M. Immediately after result was announced and the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the returned candidate') was declared elected. Total number of votes polled was .. 1,03,226 near about 71.5% Total number of votes found in favour of .. 28,091 the returned candidate Total number of votes found in favour of .. 20,521 the petitioner. The petitioner contested the election on the ticket of the Republican Party of India (Khobragade) an his symbol was HORSE while the returned candidate Vilas Vishwanath Shrangarpawar contested the election as an independent candidate and his symbol was MASHAL (Torch). 2. According to the petitioner, through the returned candidate contested the election as an independent candidate, his propoganda was as if he was an official candidate of the Indian National Congress (1) and thereby he tried directly or indirectly to interfere or attempted to interfere with free exercise of the electoral right. This propoganda, according to him, amounted to corrupt practice under section 123(3) and (3-A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, his election is liable to be set aside and declared to 'be void under section 100(1)(b) of the said Act. According to the petitioner, the Indian National Congress (I) did not set up any candidate in this election on their behalf but supported respondent No. 12 Laxmanrao Shrawan Tirpude, who was a candidate of the Republican party of India of Ramdas Athawale. In short, his contention is that there was an alliance between the Indian National Congress (I) and the Republican Party of India of Ramdas Athawale in this election. According to the petitioner, the returned candidate printed posters with the photograph of late Smt. Indira Gandhi - the Ex Prime Minister and Ex President of the Indian National Congress (I), and that these posters were pasted at the prominent places throughout the constituency. 3. According to the petitioner, the returned candidate printed posters with the photograph of late Smt. Indira Gandhi - the Ex Prime Minister and Ex President of the Indian National Congress (I), and that these posters were pasted at the prominent places throughout the constituency. 3. According to the petitioner, the returned candidate addressed small gatherings of about 15 to 20 persons essentially consisting of this workers and voters at different places in the constituency and told them that several Hindu candidates were contesting the election, consequently their votes would be divided and the petitioner, who is a Mahar, would be elected. He exhorted them if they would tolerate a Mahar and whether they would like to go to him for their work. He also alleged to have said that if the petitioner was elected, Adyar constituency would be a reserved constituency for Scheduled Castes for 15 to 20 years. 4 The petitioner was informed of the above communal propoganda by persons who heard it. They also gave it in writing in the form of an affidavit to the petitioner. However, the affidavits are not sworn. According to the petitioner, this amounted to corrupt practice under section 123(3) and (3-A) of the Act and as such his election is liable to be set aside and declared to the void and further he is liable to be disqualified for corrupt practice under section 100(1)(b) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the returned candidate, his agents and other persons with his consent had appealed to the voters of the constituency in the name of religion, viz, Hindu religion, to which the returned candidate belongs, for voting in his favour and to which the returned candidate belongs, for voting in his favour and to refrain from voting in favour of Mahar candidate, viz, the petitioner. 5. It was further contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 18 Raghunath Hari Bramhankar was the District Government Pleader and Assistant Public Prosecutor for Bhandara district. He has thus disqualified for being chosen as a candidate and his nomitation paper could not have been accepted since he is holding the office of profit under the State of Maharashtra under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. He has thus disqualified for being chosen as a candidate and his nomitation paper could not have been accepted since he is holding the office of profit under the State of Maharashtra under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No. 8 Bramhankar has materially affected the election of the returned candidate and hence is liable to be set aside and declared to be void under section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act. 6. The petitioner contended that the primary estimate of polling was 65% but after the counting it was found 71.5% of the total votes on the electoral roll of the said Adyar constituency. He contended that the same estimate was published in the newspapers. Thus, according to him, there was a difference of 7570 vote between the votes got by the returned candidate and the votes got by the petitioner. According to him, on the basis of the estimate excess votes were found to be 9293 and if these votes are excluded from the counting, the petitioner has secured higher votes and the was entitled to be declared elected. In view of this he was alleged that there was a tampering ballot boxes which resulted in the excess votes of 9293. According to him, on account of this the election of the returned candidate is liable to be declared void. Lastly, the petitioner contended that the petitioner contended that he immediately after the announcement of the results of the election applied to the respondent No. 27 Returning Officer in writing for re-counting of votes, but he refused to accept his application. 7. The returned candidate denied that the estimate of polling was 65%. According to him the figures given by the petitioner are not authentic and they are merely a guess work of the concerned newspapers and the petitioners. He denied tempering of the ballot boxes. According to him, he belongs to Congress I and as such he was elected from this constituency in the election of 1985. However, inspite of his loyalty and work, he was denied the ticket is an official candidate of the Congress I in the election of 1990. Instead, there was an alliance between the Indian National Congress and Republican Party of India led by Ramdas Athawale. However, inspite of his loyalty and work, he was denied the ticket is an official candidate of the Congress I in the election of 1990. Instead, there was an alliance between the Indian National Congress and Republican Party of India led by Ramdas Athawale. In view of this, many lyal workers from the Indian National Congress I felt that injustice was being done to them and, therefore, they formed a separate organisation known as "Maharashtra Indira Congress". However, it is not recognised as a political party and, therefore, no symbol was allotted to party by the Election commissioner. Therefore, the returned candidate had to contest the election as an independent candidate. He denied that he propogated that he was an official candidate of the Indian National Congress I. He also denied the allegations of the petitioner about the corrupt posters with the practice as wholly without foundation. However, he admitted that be printed the posters with the photograph of late Smt. Indira Gandhi, but according to him, he did as an admirer of Indira Gandhi. 8. The returned candidate in his return denied that he indulged into any propoganda on the basis of caste, community or religion. On the contrary, according to him, his slogan was "No caste, No creed. Only merits of the candidate" should be the consideration." According to him, he was not present in the small meetings on the workers and voters alleged to have been addressed by him at various places on various dates indulging in the propoganda based on caste, community and religion. On the other hand, he specifically pointed out that on most of those dates he was elsewhere in connection with the election campaign and in support of this he examined several witnesses. 9. In regard to the objection about non-acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No.18 Bramhakar - District Government Pleader, the returned candidate submitted that his election did not materially affect the election since he secured only 476 votes and hence there was no substance in the challenge raised by the petitioner on this count. He denied that the petitioner applied to the Returning Officer for recount of votes. 10. The Returning Officer (Respondent No. 27) has filed his return refuting the allegations made against him. He submitted that the estimate of 65% polling was not an authentic one and news to that effect was a mere guess. He denied that the petitioner applied to the Returning Officer for recount of votes. 10. The Returning Officer (Respondent No. 27) has filed his return refuting the allegations made against him. He submitted that the estimate of 65% polling was not an authentic one and news to that effect was a mere guess. He denied that there were excess votes numbering 9293. He also denied that there was tampering of ballot boxes. He has denied that any application was filed either by the petitioner or his agent for recount and, therefore, according to him, there was no question of refusal of such application. It is denied that there were excess votes and that they were improperly accepted. According to him, no body objected to the nomination of the respondent No. 18 Bramhankar and, therefore, he accepted the same. However, since the acceptance of his nomination paper did not materially affect the result of the election, there is no substance in this challenge, he contends. 11. The petitioner and the returned candidate both have examined fairly a large number of witnesses including themselves in support of their case. The respondent No.27 Returning Officer has also examined himself as a witness. 12. The main challenge of the petitioner in the petition is that the returned candidate has made communal propoganda in the election, constituting corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(3) and (3-A) of the Act. As I have shown above, his case seems to be that the returned candidate addressed small meetings of about 15 to 20 persons consisting of his workers and voters and told them that since several Hindu candidates are contesting the election their votes are likely to be divided, as a result of which the petitioner, who is a Mahar, would be elected, He, therefore, exhorted them whether would they tolerate a Mahar as a M.L.A. and would they like to go him for work . He also told them that if Mahar was elected, this constituency would be reserved for Scheduled Castes for 15 to 20 years. It is not this case that the returned candidate or any one on his behalf said so in the public meetings. 13. Though several meetings have been addressed by the petitioner in which communcal propoganda is alleged to have been carried, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence of all those meetings since in all fairness Mr. It is not this case that the returned candidate or any one on his behalf said so in the public meetings. 13. Though several meetings have been addressed by the petitioner in which communcal propoganda is alleged to have been carried, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence of all those meetings since in all fairness Mr. Vaidya has not even referred to them. He has restricted his submissions only to 8 such meetings which are as follows :- Date Place Time 20-2-1990 Kondha 6 P.M. 22-2-2990 Katurli 8 P.M. 23-2-1990 Pahela 4 P.M. 24-2-1990 Daudipar 7 P.M 25-2-1990 Nerla 8.30 P.M. 25-2-1990 Adyar 8 P.M. 26-2-1990 Somnala 11 A.M. 14. Meeting held at Katurli on 22-2-1990. According to the petitioner, the returned candidate held a meeting at Katurli on 22-2-1990 at 8.00 P.M. at Nehru Chowk and indulged in communal propoganda. In this connection he examined Santosh Chintaman Raut (P.W. 12) and Bhimrao Wasudeo Ramteke (P.W. 13) Santosh Raut (P.W. 12) has deposed that the returned candidate had come to Katurli on 22-2-1990 in connection with the election campaign. While this witness was standing near the grocery shop at about 8.00 P.M. he saw that the returned candidate had collected about 10 to 20 persons in Nehru Chowk and was telling them that since several Hindu candidates were contesting the election, the Hindu votes would be divided, as a consequence of which the petitioner, who is Mahar, 'would be divided. He further exhorted them whether they would prefer to go to a Mahar candidate for work. According to him, the returned candidate was elected, the constituency would be reserved for 15 years for Mahar. According to this witness, he informed the petitioner on 24-2-1990 about the communal nature of the propoganda which was being made by the returned candidate and since the petitioner wanted him to give it in writing, he gave it in writing. Exh. 45 is the said writing and Exh. 45-B is its English translation . In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of communal propoganda, the returned candidate was sitting in the tea shop of one Kankhore. He has further admitted that if one has to go to the grocery shop from his house, the tea shop does not fall in the way. This admission renders his evidence highly improbable. He does not appear to be a natural witness. He has further admitted that if one has to go to the grocery shop from his house, the tea shop does not fall in the way. This admission renders his evidence highly improbable. He does not appear to be a natural witness. He has stated that he gave the information in writing in the form of an affidavit on his own. It is difficult to appreciate as to why this witness though it necessary to report about the communal propoganda in the form of an affidavit particularly when he did not think it necessary to report the matter to any other authority even though he admits that such a propoganda amounts to an offence. For all these reasons, I do not think it safe to accept his evidence. Bhimrao Wasudeo Ramteke (P.W. 13) has deposed that the returned candidate had come to his village Katurli on 22-2-1990 and held a corner meeting in Nehru Ward. According to him, there were about 15 to 20 persons in that meeting. According to him, the returned candidate told them that since several Hindu candidates were contesting the election the Hindu votes would be divided, as a consequence of which the petitioner was likely to be elected. He further asked the workers whether they would tolerate a Mahar candidate being elected. According to him, the returned candidate posed a query to his audience whether he was not suitable even in comparison to Mahar. The return candidate also alleged to have said that if the Mahar was elected, the constituency would be reserved for Mahar candidates for 15 years. The uncle of this witness, Devan and Ragunath Ramteke, who was also contesting the election, was not informed by this witness about the communal nature of the propoganda alleged to have been made by the returned candidate. There is no reference to the name of this witness in the affidavit given by Santosh Raut (P.W. 12). In the petition in para 15 while referring the meeting at Katurli, the petitioiner does not refer to this witness. For all these reasons it is not possible to place any reliance even on this witness. 15. The returned candidate admitted that he held a meeting at Katurli, but he has denied that he indulged in any communal propoganda. According to him he simply told the people about his candidature and that this symbol was torch. For all these reasons it is not possible to place any reliance even on this witness. 15. The returned candidate admitted that he held a meeting at Katurli, but he has denied that he indulged in any communal propoganda. According to him he simply told the people about his candidature and that this symbol was torch. He has denied the presence of Santosh Raut (P.W. 12) and Bhimrao Ramteke (P.W. 13). He has examined Kewalran Gaidhane (R.W. 14) and Damodhar Ragute (R.W. 16) to substantiate his contention that no communal propoganda was made. Kewalram (R.W. 14) has deposed that the solgan of the returned candidate was "No caste or community consideration should weigh with the voters". He appealed to the people to vote only on the basis of merits of the candidate. He admitted that the returned candidate visited his village Katurli on 22-2-1990 at 8.00 P.M. along with Damodhar Raghute and Balwant Bhoyar. According to this witness, the returned candidate halted at the hotel of one Baburao Sahare and told to about 4 to 5 people who had collected there that they should elect him and that his symbol was torch. There was no reference to caste or community and thereafter the returned candidate left the hotel and went towards Adyar. According to this witness, he halted in the hotel for about 10 minutes. He has further deposed that while going to the grocery shop of Devanad Wahane from the house of Bhimrao Ramteke or Santosh Raut, the tea shop of Bhaurao Sahare does not fall on the way. He is the Sarpanch of the village since last 10 years. His testimony is not at all shaken in cross examination though he has been cross-examined at some length. Another witness examined by the returned candidate on this point is Damodhar Raghute (R.W. 16). This witness has fully corroborated the testimony of the returned candidate in all material particulars. He worked for the returned candidate in the election. He accompanied the returned candidate to number of villages in connection with the election campaign. He has deposed that on 22-2-2990 he along with the returned candidate went to Tirri, Chikhli, Pilandri, Kesalpuri and Katurli. This witness has fully corroborated the testimony of the returned candidate in all material particulars. He worked for the returned candidate in the election. He accompanied the returned candidate to number of villages in connection with the election campaign. He has deposed that on 22-2-2990 he along with the returned candidate went to Tirri, Chikhli, Pilandri, Kesalpuri and Katurli. According to him, at Katuri they halted at the tea shop of one Bhaurao Sahare at about 8-00 P.M. He stated that at all the places the returned candidate was telling that his symbol was a torch and that people should vote for him in view of his past work as a M.L.A. without being influenced by the consideration of caste or community. Thus, taking into consideration the evidence of the returned candidate and his witnesses, it is difficult to accept the allegation of the petitioner that the returned candidate indulged in communal propoganda. I have already shown above that the evidence led by the petitioner does not inspire confidence and it would not be safe to accept such evidence in an election petition which is a quasi criminal trial. 16. Meeting held at Daudipar on 24-2-1990. According to the petitioner, the returned candidate had also called a meeting at Daudipar on 24-2-1990 at about 7-00 P.M. and indulged in communal propoganda based on caste, community and religion. he has examined Ramlal Kashiram Dhurve (P.W. 14) and Patiram Bakaram Meshram (P.W. 15) in support of his contention. According to Ramlal Dhurve (P.W. 14), the returned candidate had come to his house on 24-2-1990 in connection with the election meeting since he had an election office in his house. He further stated that about 15 to 20 persons were present there. He deposed that election posters of the returned candidate were affixed at number of places in his village which carried the photograph of late Smt. Indira Gandhi alongwith that of the returned candidate. He has proved the said posters, which are at Exhs. 16 and 17. He further stated that the returned candidate said that several Hindu candidates were contesting the election and, therefore, the votes would be divided and the Mahar would be elected, and whether they would tolerate a Mahar. According to him, the returned candidate also said that if Mahar was elected no body could get a chance for 15 years. He further stated that the returned candidate said that several Hindu candidates were contesting the election and, therefore, the votes would be divided and the Mahar would be elected, and whether they would tolerate a Mahar. According to him, the returned candidate also said that if Mahar was elected no body could get a chance for 15 years. He, therefore, exhorted the workers and voters that they should not allow the votes to be divided amongst Hindu candidate and that the returned candidate should be elected. According to this witness, he informed the petitioner about this propoganda and thereafter he gave it in writing on the request of the petitioner. This witness is definitely adverse to the returned candidate. It is clear from his evidence that he had asked for Congress I ticket for his wife in the election of 1985. The ticket was denied to his wife and instead it was given to the returned candidate. According to him, he gave a writing to help the petitioner. It is surprising that when all other witnesses have given only one writing in favour of the petitioner, this witness gave two separate writings in the form of an affidavit, though not sworn, (Exhs. 49 and 48). Exh. 49 refers to one Tripude, whereas Exh.48 refers to the petitioner that since he is a Mahar, people should not vote for him. Again, there is no satisfactory explanation as to why the writing is given in the form of an affidavit. For all these reasons, it is not possible to place any reliance on the testimony of this witness. The next witness, whose testimony is relied upon by the petitioner, is Patiram Meshram (P.W. 15). He has deposed that the returned candidate had come to village Daudipar Dhaurve (P.W. 14). According to him, about 20 to 22 persons were present in the meeting. He was also present there. According to him, the returned candidate told the people that several Hindu candidates were contesting the election and therefore, the Hindu votes would be divided, as a consequence of which the petitioner, who is a Mahar, would like to go to Mahar for signature. Reading his evidence as a whole it does not inspire any confidence. He does not give the reasons as to why he went to attend that meeting. Reading his evidence as a whole it does not inspire any confidence. He does not give the reasons as to why he went to attend that meeting. It is also not clear from his evidence as to how the petitioner came to know that this witness was present in that meeting, because he does not claim to have informed the petitioner about this meeting and the and the communal propoganda alleged to have been made by the returned candidate. It appears from the evidence of the petitioner that whenever the witnesses have informed the petitioner about such meetings, the petitioner asked them to give it in writing. It is not understood as to why no such writing was taken from this witness. He has admitted that he had no information about the same. He claims to have gone to the house of Bhaiyya Dhurve because he had some work with him, but he does not say what that work was and whether that work was done or not. In fact, he admits that because of that meeting he did not speak to Bhaiyya Dhurve about the work. In other words, one has to believe that he simply went there, heard the communal propogands and came back. For all these reasons it would not be safe to rely on the testimony of this witness. 17. The returned candidate has examined Anil Harde (R.W. 2) and Ashok Moharkar (R.W. 21) besides himself in order to prove that he did not go to Daudipar on 24-2-1990 as alleged by the petitioner. Anil Harde (R.W. 2) has deposed that he is a resident of Daudipar. According to him, the returned candidate did not visit this village on 24-2-1990 and instead he had visited the village on 25-2-1990 at about 9-30 P.M. when he had stayed there hardly for few minutes. He has deposed that there was no election office of the returned candidate at village Daudipar. However, he admits that election posters of the returned candidate were affixed at Dhurve's house as well as in the village. According to him, no communal propoganda was made by the returned candidate. On the contrary his request was that people should vote for him in view of his past service, according to the witness. In cross-examination, his testimony is not shaken. Ashok Moharkar (R.W. 21) claims to have worked for the returned candidate in the said election. According to him, no communal propoganda was made by the returned candidate. On the contrary his request was that people should vote for him in view of his past service, according to the witness. In cross-examination, his testimony is not shaken. Ashok Moharkar (R.W. 21) claims to have worked for the returned candidate in the said election. According to him, the returned candidate had no election office at his village. He has deposed that he went with the returned candidate on 17-2-1990 and also on 24-2-1990 they covered villages Asgaon, Mohari, Lavari, Borgaon, Badhere, etc. in connection with the election propoganda. According to him, he was with the returned candidate on that day upto 5-00 P.M. His testimony is both shaken in cross-examination. It is not even suggested to him that the returned candidate visited Daudipar on 24-2-1990. Mohd. Bashir (R.W. 3) is a resident of Daudipar. According to him, the returned candidate had no election office at Daudipar. He has further deposed that the returned candidate visited the village on 15-2-1990 at about 9-30 P.M. In connection with the election propaganda. In cross-examination he has stated that the returned candidate visited Daudipar only once i.e. on 15-2-1990 during the election period. According to him, he remembered the date 15-2-1990 because the personally met the returning in officer on that day. The returned candidate has also entered the witness-box and has deposed that on 24-2-1990 he visited villages other than Daudipar. He has denied that he visited Daudipar on 24-2-1990. According to him, he had no election office at Daudiparand that he had not authorised anybody to open the same there. There is nothing in his cross-examination to show that his testimony is shaken on this point. In view of the evidence led by the parties, it is difficult to hold that the returned candidate had addressed any meeting at Daudipar on 24-2-1990 and indulged in communal propoganda as alleged by the petitioner. 18. Meeting held at Nerla on 25-2-1990. In regard to the meeting held at Nerla, the case of the petitioner is not that the returned candidate himself indulged in communal propoganda. According to him, it was one Satyawan albale (R.W. 23), who indulged in that propoganda on behalf of the returned candidate. Solitary witness had been examined by the petitioner in suppport of his contention, i.e. Anandrao Kodane (P.W. 30 to prove this meeting. According to him, it was one Satyawan albale (R.W. 23), who indulged in that propoganda on behalf of the returned candidate. Solitary witness had been examined by the petitioner in suppport of his contention, i.e. Anandrao Kodane (P.W. 30 to prove this meeting. Anandrao Kodane is the resident of Nerla. He has desposed that the returned candidate had called a meeting on 25-2-1990 in the house of one Baburao Godmare at Nerla. Godmare's house being just infront of his house, he claims to have gone there and attended the meeting. According to him, Satyawan Ajbale told the people present in the meeting that they should not vote for the petitioner because he is a Mahar and that they must vote for the returned candidate. He claims to have informed this to the petitioner and also gave it in writing on 28-2-1990 (Exh.21-B is the English translation of the said writing). From his examaination-in-chief it appears that propoganda was made by the returned candidate himself However, in the cross-examination he took a somersault and said that it was Satyawan Ajbale who did that propoganda. In cross-examination he has categorically admitted that the returned candidate was not present in the said meeting. It is not understood as to why he gave it in writing on 28-2-1990 when, according to him, he already reported the matter to the petitioner earlier, particularly when it does not appear that he gave it in writing just to apprise the petitioner of a false propoganda that was going on against him. The explanation appear to be obviously false because he had already apprised him earlier orally. There if also no cogent explanation for giving it as late as on 28-2-1990 when the incident took place on 25-2-1990. Thus, it is difficult to believe the solitary testimony of this witness. 19. The returned candidate has examined Satyawan Ajbale (R.W. 23) in support of his contention that there was no meeting at Nerla on 25-2-2990 as alleged by the petitioner. Satyawan Ajbale has deposed that he did not hold any meeting on 25-2-1990 either at Nerla or at Holi Chowk at Adyar. According to him, he did not work for the returned candidate in that election and, therefore, there was no question of addressing any meeting by him. Satyawan Ajbale has deposed that he did not hold any meeting on 25-2-1990 either at Nerla or at Holi Chowk at Adyar. According to him, he did not work for the returned candidate in that election and, therefore, there was no question of addressing any meeting by him. In cross-examination an attempt was made to show that he is an interesting witness, and in fact he is to some extent since he admitted that he worked as a counting agent for the returned candidate after the election was over. He also admitted that he was the worker of the Indian National Congress (I) and that he worked for the returned candidate in the election of 1985. However, that it by itself cannot be a ground to discard his testimony particularly when it is not at all shaken in cross-examination. As I have already observed above that the petitioner has examined the solitary witness Anandrao Kodane in support of this incident and for the reasons discussed above it is not possible to accept his testimony. I, therefore, find that no such meeting was held at Nerla on 25-2-1990 as allege by the petitioner. 20. Meeting held at Adyar on 25-2-1990. In regard to the incident at Adyar on 25-2-1990 the petitioner examined two witnessess: Ramesh Tirpude (P.W.8) and Sampat Korea (P.W.16). The evidence of Ramesh Tirpude (P.W.8) seems to be useless. He claims to have stopped near the grocery shop on seeing about 10 to 20 persons standing near Holi Chowk on 25- 2-1990. The returned candidate was also there. According to this witness, the returned candidate was saying whether they would like the petitioner who is a Mahar being elected as a M.L.A. According him returned candidate further said that if Mahar was elected then the constituency would be reserved for 15 to 20 years. He also told the people whether they would like to go to a Mahar to get their work done. According to this witness, next day he went to the petitioner at Nerla from Adyar and informed him the type of propoganda that was being made against him. The petitioner, According to this witness, next day he was willing to give to on writing and since he agreed to give to on writing he came back home at Adyar, prepared the writing (Exh. The petitioner, According to this witness, next day he was willing to give to on writing and since he agreed to give to on writing he came back home at Adyar, prepared the writing (Exh. 34) and handed over the same to the petitioner by again going to Nerla. The writing is in as affidavit form. It does not appeal to reason as to why he has gone to Nerla from Adyar to report the incident; then prepared the document (Exh. 34) at Adyar and handed over the same to the petitioner by again going to Nerla. Again it is not understood as to why he gave the same in affidavit form when the petitioner did not ask him to do so. The next witness relies upon by the petitioner is Sampat Korea (P.W.16). It is difficult to place any reliance on the testimony of this witness. He has as axe to grind against the returned candidate. He was prosecuted for having exhumed the body of the daughter of the brother of the returned candidate and for practising witch-craft, though he was ultimately acquitted. He was fined in Ciriminal Case No. 994 of 1989 for offences under section 110, 112 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act. He is yet facing another prosecution for offences under sections 448,294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Even otherwise, in the examination-in-chief he has not stated anything beyond that the returned candidate held a meeting at Holi Chowk on 25-2-1990 of about 15 to 20 persons at 8-00 P.M.; that if the petitioner, who is a Mahar, is elected the constituency would be reserved for 15 years and no body would get a chance'. It is doubtful whether this statement by itself constitute communal propoganda, constituting corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(3) and (3-A) of the Act. 21. The returned candidate has examined Kalekhan Pathan (R.W.7). Mahadeo Chimurkar (R.W.8) and Ashok Gabhane (R.W.22) besides himself in regard to this incident. Kalekhan Pathan (R.W.7) has deposed that the returned candidate had come to his village Thana on 25-2-1990 at about 9-00 P.M. According to him, the returned candidate passed from infront of his house while campaigning from house to house. One Chimurkar Saudi Sarpanch and Dayal Kanna were with the returned candidate. Kalekhan Pathan (R.W.7) has deposed that the returned candidate had come to his village Thana on 25-2-1990 at about 9-00 P.M. According to him, the returned candidate passed from infront of his house while campaigning from house to house. One Chimurkar Saudi Sarpanch and Dayal Kanna were with the returned candidate. This witness accompanied the returned candidate upto some distance and thereafter the returned candidate left for Shahpur and this witness came back to his house. The next witness is Mahadeo Chimurkar (R.W.8) He is also from Thana . According to him also the returned candidate had gone to his village Thana in connection with the election campaign on 25-2-1990 at about 7 P.M. and propagated from house to house about his candidature. While propagating he did not refer to community or caste. This witness also accompanied the returned candidate to Shahapur from Thana and reached Shahapur at about 9.30 P.M. and from there the returned candidate proceeded to Adyar and this witness came back to his village Thana. The returned candidate also denied that he addressed any meeting at Adyar on 25.2.1990 as alleged by the petitioner. Thus, it seems Ashok Gabhane (R.W.22) worked for the returned candidate in the Assembly election of 1990. He is a resident of Adyar (Mandai Mohalla). He has deposed that the returned candidate, never held any meeting at Mandai Mohalla. He has further deposed that on 25-2-1990 he did not hold any meeting at Holi Chowk. According to him, the returned candidate came to Mandai Mohalla on 21.2.1990 and told the voters that he was an independent candidate and that his election symbol was torch. He denied that they indulged in any communal propoganda. His testimony is not shaken in cross-examination. It has not been suggested to him in cross-examination that the meeting was held at Adyar (Mandai Mohalla) on 25-2-1990. Thus, it seems to be highly improbable that such a meeting was addressed by the returned candidate at Adyar on 25-2-1990 in which communal propoganda was made. 22. Meeting held at Adyar on 26-2-1990. Now, coming to the incident of Adyar dated 26-2-1990, we have the evidence of Dakram Chavan (P.W.1) and Gopal Gabhane (P.W.2) on behalf of the petitioner. Dakram (P.W.1) is a resident of Adyar. He has deposed that on 26-2-1990 the returned candidate had collected about 15 to 20 people near the house of Gopal Gabhane. Now, coming to the incident of Adyar dated 26-2-1990, we have the evidence of Dakram Chavan (P.W.1) and Gopal Gabhane (P.W.2) on behalf of the petitioner. Dakram (P.W.1) is a resident of Adyar. He has deposed that on 26-2-1990 the returned candidate had collected about 15 to 20 people near the house of Gopal Gabhane. He heard the returned candidate saying that since there were several Hindu candidates contesting the election, the votes of Hindus would be divided and the petitioner, who is a Mahar, would be elected. He asked them whether they would like to go to a Mahar for signature. According to him, the returned candidate also told the people that if Mahar would he elected the constituency would be reserved for 15 to 20 years for Mahar. He claims to have informed this to the petitioner on 27-2-1990. When the petitioner asked him to give it in writing, he gave it in the form of an affidavit (Exh. 20) on 28-2-1990. It is surprising that he does not give the time as to when the meeting was addressed by the returned candidate. There is inconsistency between his evidence and the evidence of the petitioner particularly on the point whether the affidavit was given by this witness on his own or on the asking of the petitioner. According to him, he gave it in writing because he was asked for by the petitioner, whereas according to the petitioner , the witness gave the writing on his own. This witness is of the same caste as that of the petitioner. It is not understood as to why he gave the writing ( Exh. 20) in the form of an affidavit. The evidence appears to be artificial and it is not possible to accept the same. Gopal Gabhane (P.W.2) is the resident of Adyar. according to him, the returned candidate had taken a meeting a day prior to the day of election infront of his house. There were about 25 people in the said meeting. The returned candidate, according to him, told the people that since several Hindu candidates were contesting the election there was every likelihood that the vote of Hindus would be divided as a consequence of which Mahar would be elected. According to this witness, the returned candidate asked the people whether would it be proper for them to go to a Mahar for work. According to this witness, the returned candidate asked the people whether would it be proper for them to go to a Mahar for work. This witness has not given the time of the meeting, which is a serious infirmity and renders his evidence highly improbable. 23. The returned candidate has examined two witness; Balwant Bhoyar (R.W.17) and Nilkanth Kohapare (R.W.19) besides himself to refute the allegation of the petitioner in regard to the incident of Adyar. Balwant Bhoyar (R.W.17) is a resident of Adyar. According to him, he visited several places in connection with the election campaign of the returned candidate. According to him, on 26-2-1990 he along with the returned candidate went to Navegaon in the evening. One Raghute Guruji was with them. They moved from house to house in connection with the election campaign. He denied that the returned candidate indulged in any communal propaganda. According to him, from Navegaon Bandh they come to Adyar at 9-30 P.M. It has not been suggested to this witness that they held a meeting at Adyar after coming from Navegaon. There is nothing to doubt the evidence of this witness. The next witness is Nilkanth Kohapare (R.W.19). This witness is a resident of Navegaon. He has been examined to show that the returned candidate was at his village on 26-2-1990 at about 8-45 P.M. in connection with the election propoganda and that he was accompanied by Bhoyar Guruji and Raghute Guruji. No doubt the distance between Adyar and Navegaon is only 3 Kms. and it is not impossible to address a meeting at Adyar after 9-00 P.M., but it is not so suggested to the witness in his cross-examination. The returned candidate has also denied that he had addressed a meeting at Adyar on 26-2-1990. Thus, for all these reasons it is not possible to hold that the returned candidate had addressed a meeting at Adyar on 26-2-1990 at about 9-00 P.M. as alleged by the petitioner. 24. We have covered the five meetings which are seriously pressed by Mr. Vaidya. We are now left only with other following three meetings. Date Place Time 20-2-1990 Kondha 6 P.M. 23-2-1990 Pahela 4 P.M. 26-2-1990 Somnala 11 A.M. All these three meetings are based on solitary testimony. Now, coming to the meeting at Kondha dated 20-2-1990, Shamrao Ramteke (P.W.6) is the only witness examined by the petitioner. Vaidya. We are now left only with other following three meetings. Date Place Time 20-2-1990 Kondha 6 P.M. 23-2-1990 Pahela 4 P.M. 26-2-1990 Somnala 11 A.M. All these three meetings are based on solitary testimony. Now, coming to the meeting at Kondha dated 20-2-1990, Shamrao Ramteke (P.W.6) is the only witness examined by the petitioner. According to him, on 20-2-1990 when he was at village Kondha Kosra he saw that about 10 to 12 persons were standing near the shop of Sarpanch Manoharrao Jibhkate along with the returned candidate. According to this witness, the returned candidate told then that there was no possibility of respondent No. 4 Eknath Ramchandra Bawankar, respondent No.7 Vilas Ramkrishna Katekhaye and respondent No.15 Dorao Lalaji Ragute being elected and, therefore, chances of the petitioner were bright. He, therefore, persuaded them to elect him. Thereafter the meeting came to be dispersed. This is the sum and substance of his evidence. He does not attribute any communal propoganda to the returned candidate. He is the solitary witness on this incident. His evidence is of no assistance to the petitioner. 25. As regards the meeting at Pahela dated 23-2-1990, Sadashiv Donu Uke (P.W.10) is the solitary witness. He has deposed that on 23-2-1990 the returned candidate came to village Pahela in connection with the election propoganda before his election office near the bus-stand at 4 P.M.. According to him, the returned candidate said that since there were several Hindu candidates, there was no likelihood of his being elected. Therefore, the petitioner was bound to be elected. He has further deposed that once the petitioner was bound to be elected. He has further deposed that once the petitioner was elected the constituency would be reserved for 15 years for Mahar. He claims to have gone to village Pahela for purchase of goods. In cross-examination he has admitted that he had gone to Pahale to receive his wages. He has admitted that the affidavit (Exh.38) is prepared by his son Ramesh about the communal propoganda alleged to have been made by the returned candidate on 23-2-1990 at village Pahela. He has further admitted that he did not ask his son Ramesh to prepare the report on the form of an affidavit. his son was studying in First Year. He has admitted that the affidavit (Exh.38) is prepared by his son Ramesh about the communal propoganda alleged to have been made by the returned candidate on 23-2-1990 at village Pahela. He has further admitted that he did not ask his son Ramesh to prepare the report on the form of an affidavit. his son was studying in First Year. It is, therefore, difficult to believe as to how he knows affidavit, particularly when he is not conversant with Court work or other official work. For all these reasons, it is difficult to accept his evidence without there being any corroboration. 26. As regards the meeting at Somnala dated 26-2-1990, Kailash Chingali Ramteke (P.W.9) has been examined by the petitioner. He has deposed that on 26-2-1990 Shankarrao Vaidya-Vice Chairman of the Pauni Panchayat Samiti was addressing 15 to 20 persons in the hotel of Waman that there was no livelihood of Deorao Raghute, Vilas Katekhaye and Eknath Bawankar being elected and that there was every likelihood that the petitioner, who is Mahar, would be elected. He has further deposed that Shankarrao Vaidya warned the people that if the petitioner was elected then they will have to go to Mahar foe seeking signature on this point. This witness has executed a writing in the form of an affidavit (Exh.36). In examination-in-chief, this witness has disposed that Exh.36 is the same document in his hand and he identified his signature there on. However, in cross-examination he says that the contents of Exh.36 are not in his hand. According to his version in cross-examination, they were written by his brother Baliram as dictated by him. He claims to have handed over Exh.36 to the petitioner by going to Nerla from his village Somnala, which renders his testimony highly improbable. No reliance can, therefore, be placed on this witness. 27. The allegations of corrupt practices in an election petition are in the nature of quasi criminal charges and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence discussed above in respect of the 8 meetings, it does not appear that the petitioner has successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. 27. The allegations of corrupt practices in an election petition are in the nature of quasi criminal charges and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence discussed above in respect of the 8 meetings, it does not appear that the petitioner has successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Vaidya has laid great stress on the following observations made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 64 of the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 236 (S. Harcharan singh v. S. Sajjan Singh and others)1 : "Several decisions of this Court have laid down various tests to determine the standard of proof required to establish corrupt practice. While insisting on standard of strict proof, the Court should not extend or stretch this doctrine to such as extreme extent as to make it well-high impossible to prove an allegation of corrupt practice. Such an approach would defeat and frustrate the very laudable and sacrosanct object of the Act in maintaining purity of the electoral process." In view of the above decision, Mr.Vaidya has argued that while appreciating the evidence laudable and sacrosanct object of the Act in maintaining purity of the electoral process cannot be lost sight of. There can be no dispute about this proposition, but, nonetheless it cannot be lost sight of that the charge of corrupt practice is a punitive rule against the character assassination of candidate during the period of of election. The charge of corrupt practice being of a quasi criminal character, the onus on an election petitioner is heavy as if in a criminal charge. It is true that while insisting on the standard of strict proof, the court should not extend or stretch this doctrine to such an extreme extent as to make it well-night impossible to prove an allegation of corrupt practice, but, nonetheless the allegations have got to be established beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court by cogent and unimpeachable evidence. Even if two views are reasonably possible one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him, it would not be proper to upset the election. The law requires that in such a case, the election will have to be upheld giving the winning candidate benefit of doubt. In this connection, Mr. Even if two views are reasonably possible one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him, it would not be proper to upset the election. The law requires that in such a case, the election will have to be upheld giving the winning candidate benefit of doubt. In this connection, Mr. Palshikar has rightly referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1986 S.C.3 : (Ram Singh and others v. Col. Ram Singh)2. Paras 3 and 4 of the said decision read as under: "3. Of course, the advocacy of the counsel for the parties does play a very important role in unveiling the truth and in borderline cases the courts have to undertake the onerous task of "disengaging the truth from falsehood to separate the chaff from the grain". In our opinion, all said and done. If two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him-courts should not interfere with the expensive electoral process and instead of setting at naught the election of the winning candidate should uphold his election giving him benefit of doubt. This is more so where allegations of fraud or undus influence are made. 4. These observations have been made by us in order to decide election cases with the greatest amount of care and caution, consideration and circumspection because if one false step is taken, it may cause have to the person who loses." 28. Mr.Vaidya has heavily relied on the decision reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C.1758 (B.B. Bukhari v. B.R. Mehra)3, to substantiate the ground of corrupt practice. I do not think there is any comparison between Bukhari's case and the present case. In Bhukhari's case, Bhukari had delivered highly inflammatory speeches which amounted to the assertion that muslim religion was in danger and could not be saved by a man like him and not by Shaukat Chagla. Bhukari had addressed several public meetings canvassing that Islam was in danger and that Muslim Personal Law would be changed if his opponent Shaukat Chagla was elected. Shaukat Chagla had married a Hindu wife and in that connection Bhukari said that he was neither a good muslim nor a good Hindu. Bhukari had addressed several public meetings canvassing that Islam was in danger and that Muslim Personal Law would be changed if his opponent Shaukat Chagla was elected. Shaukat Chagla had married a Hindu wife and in that connection Bhukari said that he was neither a good muslim nor a good Hindu. He further said to the listener that if they voted for Chagla, they would have to cremate the bodies of their dead instead of buring them, because Chagla had cremated the dead bodies of his sister. Bhukari directly attacked Chagla 's religion and in that connection said that everyone had to observe his religion wholeheartedly and not like Chagla. It is in view of these highly inflamatory speeches that the Supreme Court observed that his absolutely unambiguous object was to persuade the audience not to vote for Chagla but to vote for Bhukari on the ground that Bhukari was a true Muslim were as Chagla was not. In that case, the evidence was clinching inasmuch as the speeches were tape-recorded and some were taken down by the Stenographer of the Police Department in verbatim. In the present case, the evidence is not impeachable. The objectionable sentences "would you tolerate a Mahar" and "would you like to go to Mahar for your work " are not even deposed to by all the witnesses. Some of the witnesses have not even deposed to the time of the meeting which is a material fact to constitute corrupt practise. Even if the evidence is accepted, the attack on the caste of the petitioner is in private meetings and there is not an iota of evidence to show that the same was conveyed in public meetings. 29. Mr. Vaidya has also relied on A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 236 (cited supra). The facts of this case are also distinguishable. In this case (cited supra) some communications in the nature of Hukamnama from Akal Takhta were issued in favour of the returned candidate and therefore, his election was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to corrupt practices under section 123 of the Act. The facts of this case are also distinguishable. In this case (cited supra) some communications in the nature of Hukamnama from Akal Takhta were issued in favour of the returned candidate and therefore, his election was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to corrupt practices under section 123 of the Act. It is in that background the Supreme Court has observed in para 64 as follows: "Taking into account the totality of the evidence in the background of the fact that some communications from Akal Takht, call it Hukamnama or any other name, were issued and the issues of editorials of Akali Takht, which were mentioned by Shri Parkash Singh Badal as stated by the witness on behalf of the opinion that in this case appeal in the name of religion was made on behalf of respondent No.3. " The evidence in the above case was clinching inasmuch as issuance of Hukamnama from Akal Takht was not in dispute. It was represented to the electorate that the returned candidate was a nominee of the Akal Takht by no less a person than the former Chief Minister of Punjab in presence of the candidate himself. The candidate also asserted the same. It was represented that it was the religious duty of the Sikhs to vote. It was further represented that any Sikh who costs his vote in favour of Indira Congress did not deserve to be called a Sikh. It was also emphasised that right to vote was a sacred trust in favour of the Panth and whoever exercised this right against the order issued by the Panth, would be regarded as a traitor to the Panth. It is, therefore, clear that appeal to vote for the returned candidate in the name of Akal Takht with all the consequences of Hukamnama of Akal Takht was highlighted before the electorate. In do not think, there is any comparison between the above case and the present case. As already observed above, corrupt practise must be proved in the same way as a criminal charge is proved. The election petitioner must exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt on the part of the returned candidate or his election agents. In do not think, there is any comparison between the above case and the present case. As already observed above, corrupt practise must be proved in the same way as a criminal charge is proved. The election petitioner must exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt on the part of the returned candidate or his election agents. Having regard to all these facts, the contention of the petitioner that the returned candidate has committed corrupt practise under section 123(3) and (3-A) of the Act is rejected and, therefore, the question of declaring the election of the returned candidate void under section 100(1)(b) of the Act does not arise. 30. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.18 Bramhankar was disqualified for being chosen as Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly since he was holding the office of profit under the State of Maharastra under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. His nomination was, therefore, improperly accepted, he contended. He further contended that acceptance of the nomination of respondent No.18 created confusion in the minds of the voters and, therefore, the voters cast their votes in favour of the returned candidate has been materially affected and hence it is liable to be set aside and declared to be void under section 100(l)(d)(i) of the Act. The Returning Officer has espoused that he did not know that respondent No.18 was a Government Pleader. He has further deposed that on the date of scrutiny no body took objection to the candidate of the respondent No.18 and hence he accepted his nomination. Though Mr. Palshikar has not seriously disputed that the acceptance of his nomination in any way affected the election of the returned candidate. I feel, there is much substance in this contention. The fact that the respondent No.18 got only 476 votes is sufficient to indicate that acceptance of his nomination cannot be said to have materially affected the result of the election as required under section 100(l)(d)(i) of the Act. Hence, there is no substance in this challenge. 31. Mr.Vaidya has invited my attention to the pamphlets (Exh. 16 and 17) carrying the photograph of late Smt. Indira Gandhi along with the photograph of the returned candidate. On the basis of this, Mr.Vaidya has argued that this amounts to undue influence on the free exercise of the electoral rights under section 123(2) of the Act. 31. Mr.Vaidya has invited my attention to the pamphlets (Exh. 16 and 17) carrying the photograph of late Smt. Indira Gandhi along with the photograph of the returned candidate. On the basis of this, Mr.Vaidya has argued that this amounts to undue influence on the free exercise of the electoral rights under section 123(2) of the Act. The returned candidate has not disputed the pamphlets (Exhs.16 and 17). On the contrary, his case has been that he was essentially a loyal Congressman and was given ticket in the election held in 1985. His grievance seems to be that since during this election, the ticket is denied to him by the Indian National Congress(I), he had to contest the election as an independent candidate after having formed his own party, viz, 'Maharastra Indira Congress'. In substance, his contention was that he is the admiror of later Smt. Indira Gandhi. He has denied that he has brought any undue influence on the electorate by printing and publishing the photograph of late Smt. Indira Gandhi alongwith his photograph. In this connection, Mr. Palshikar has invited my attention to the decision reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 926 (Bachan Singhand another v. Prithvi Singh and others)4. In this case the posters were published by Pradesh Congress Committee containing the photographs of the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, Shri Jagjiwan Ram, Defence Minister, and Shri Swaran Singh, Foreign Minister in the first row, and beneath the first row were the photographs of three Chiefs and four Genera's of the Armed Forces, in favour of the returned candidate. It bore the caption "Pillars of Victory".Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that it did not constitute undue influence on the free exercise of the electoral rights. In paras 19 and 20 the Supreme Court observed: - "19. Doubtless the definition of 'undue influence' in sub-section(2) of section 123 is couched in very wide terms, and on first flush seems to cover every conceivable act which directly or indirectly interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of electoral right. In one sense even election propoganda carried on virorously, blaringly and systematically through charisma leaders or through various media in favour of a candidate or his political party in administrative or political field, does meddle with and mould the independent volition of electors, having poor reason and little education, in the exercise of their franchise. In one sense even election propoganda carried on virorously, blaringly and systematically through charisma leaders or through various media in favour of a candidate or his political party in administrative or political field, does meddle with and mould the independent volition of electors, having poor reason and little education, in the exercise of their franchise. That such a wide construction would not be in consonance with the intendment of the legislature is discernible from Proviso to this Clause. The proviso illustrates that ordinarily interference with the free exercise of electoral right involves either violence or treat of injury of any kind to any candidate or an elector or inducement or attempt to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he will become an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. The prefix 'undue' indicates that there must be some abuse of influence. 'Undue influence' is used in contra distinction to 'proper influence'. Construed in the light of the proviso, Clause(2) of section 123 does not bar or penalise legitimate canvassing or appeals to reason and judgment of the voters or other lawful means of persuading voters to vote or not to vote for a candidate. Indeed such proper and peaceful persuasion is the motive force of our democratic process. 20. We are unable to appreciate how the publication of this poster interfered or was calculated to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of any person. There was nothing in it which amounted to a threat of injury or undue inducement of the kind inhibited by section 123(2)" The case is on all fours and completely repels the argument of Mr.Vaidya that the publication of the photograph of late Smt. Indira Gandhi amounted to undue influence under section 123(2) of the Act. 32. According to the petitioner, the polling of Adyar Constituency was 65% as per the primary estimate of polling. He has relied on the news item published in 'Tarun Bharat' and 'Lokmat' dated 28-2-1990. However, ultimately it was found that the voting was turned out to be 71.5%. In view of this, he contended that 9293 votes were the excess votes which ought to have been excluded from the counting as they were not validly cast. He has also alleged that the ballot boxes were tampered and, therefore, the returned candidate could secure the excess votes. In view of this, he contended that 9293 votes were the excess votes which ought to have been excluded from the counting as they were not validly cast. He has also alleged that the ballot boxes were tampered and, therefore, the returned candidate could secure the excess votes. At the outset, I may point out that there is no evidence at all in regard to tampering of ballot boxes. Even the pleadings to this effect are extremely vague. The petitioner has relied on the testimony of Prabhakar Sadashiv Mahajan (P.W.11) and Suresh Sitaram Fadnavis (P.W.17). Prabhakar (P.W.11) has deposed that he had received the tentative figure of the polling from the District Information Officer, Bhandara, that the polling of the Adyar Constituency was about 65 per cent. He admits that he had supplied this estimate to the Press. According to him, the news item dated 28-2-1990 in the 'Tarun Bharat' and 'Lokmat' is based on the information he supplied. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the percentage of polling. He has further admitted that he received the information from the District Information Officer, Bhandara, on 27-2-1990 at 7-00 P.M. It is difficult to understand how this witness is of any assistance to the petitioner. He has no personal knowledge and consequently the estimates which he gave was purely tentative. Next witness Suresh (P.W.17) is the District Information Officer, Bhandara. According to him, he had received the information about the approximate percentage of polling of Adyar Constituency orally that it was 65 per cent. In cross-examination, he admits that the Deputy Election Officer had given him the estimate. He fairly admits that the exact information he came to know after the counting was over. Even this witness, in my view, is of no assistance to the petitioner since his information was just an estimate based on guess. Respondent No. 27 Dahalkar- Returning Officer, has deposed that on 28-2-1990 at about 3-00 A.M. he received all the ballot boxes duly sealed at Pauni. He kept all the ballot boxes in the strong room. According to him, he received other necessary information in the sealed packet including the account of ballot papers. He has further deposed that the Presiding Officer of each polling station sends his own statement about percentage of polling. He kept all the ballot boxes in the strong room. According to him, he received other necessary information in the sealed packet including the account of ballot papers. He has further deposed that the Presiding Officer of each polling station sends his own statement about percentage of polling. From that statement he came to know that the total percentage of voting was between 71 to 72 per cent. This information he gave to the District Election Officer and also to the Deputy Election Officer. It appears that the news item dated 28-2-1990 could not be based on this information because this information was received by the Returning Officer himself at about 3-00 A.M. on 28-2-1990. Therefore, the news appearing in the Press on 28-2-1990 could not be ordinarily on the basis of this information. It may further be observed that it was necessary for the petitioner to have examined the Reporters of the Press, who could have proved the news items and could have thrown more light on this aspect. Be that as it may, fact remains that there is no reliable evidence to prove that the percentage of voting was 65% as alleged by the petitioner. No declaration, therefore, can be granted on this count under section 100(l)(d)(iii) of the Act as prayed by the petitioner. 33. The petitioner has contended that he had given an a application (Exh.19) to the Returning Officer for recount, but he refused to accept the same. However, the Returning Officer (respondent No. 27) has denied the same. Even otherwise, from the conduct of the petitioner, it does not appear that the said application (Exh. 19) was given to the Returning Officer. Had it been refused by the Returning Officer, then certainly the petitioner would have agitated the matter further. More-over, petitioner's is solitary testimony on this point. There is only word against word and there is no reason as to why the Returning Officer should be disbelieved, particularly when his testimony is not shaken. There is no substance in this challenge. 34. For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has failed to prove the challenges raised by him in the petition. Consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed. -----