JUDGMENT V. P. Bhatnagar, J.—Dr. Rajan Sushant has filed the present petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of respondent 1 Shri Sujan Singh Pathania, held on 27-2-1990, to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly 36-Jawali Assembly Constituency. The petitioner has prayed that the aforesaid election be declared void and further that respondent 1 be declared dis-qualified for a period of six years under sections 8 and 8-A of the Act and also that a declaration be issued to the effect that the petitioner himself stands duly elected. A number of corrupt practices within the ambit of the Act have been alleged to have been committed by the returned candidate himself or on his behalf. 2. Respondent 1 raised a number of preliminary objections which led to the framing of the following issues on 8-10-1990:- 1. Whether the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed on account of objections adverted to in Registrars orders dated 20-4-1990 and 12-6-1990? O.P R. 1 2. Whether the Election Petition does not contain concise statement of material facts as provided under section 83 (1) (a) and the information stipulated in section 83 (1) (b) of the Representation of People Act? If so, its effect. O.P.R. 1 3. Whether the averments made in the Election Petition do not constitute the grounds within the ambit of section 100 (1) and section 101 of the Representation of People Act? If so, its effect. O.P.R. I 4. Whether the affidavit filed in support of corrupt practices is not in accordance with law? If so, its effect. O.P.R. 1 5. Whether the Election Petition and Annexure and Schedule attached thereto have not been signed and verified in accordance with law? If so, its effect. O.P.R. 1 6. Whether the copy supplied to respondent 1 is not the true copy of the Election Petition? If so, its effect. O.P.R. 1 The above Issues except Issues No. 2 and 3 were decided by this Court by its order dated 15-1-1991. The decision on Issues 2 and 3 was deferred. The decision on preliminary issues did not entail dismissal of the election petition. Its operative part called upon the petitioner to amend the verification clause of the petition and attach a fresh affidavit in the prescribed form. This was duly complied with. The decision on Issues 2 and 3 was deferred. The decision on preliminary issues did not entail dismissal of the election petition. Its operative part called upon the petitioner to amend the verification clause of the petition and attach a fresh affidavit in the prescribed form. This was duly complied with. The parties were then heard on preliminary issues 2 and 5 and this Court, by its order dated 3-6-1991, ordered that paras 4 (b), 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 (a) and 12 (b), 13 (a), (b), (c) and (d), 14 and 16 to 21 be struck off and further that the trial of the petition would proceed pursuant to the allegations of corrupt practice contained only in paras 4 (a) and (c), 6, 8, 8-A, 9 and 15 as these paras did disclose complete cause of action. 3. On merits, the following issues were thus framed 1. Whether any corrupt practice has been committed by respondent No. 1 or by any other person with his consent, as alleged in paras 4a, 4c, 6, 8, 8a, 9 and 15 of the election petition ? If softs effect? 2. Relief. The petitioner has thereafter examined 16 witnesses in addition to stepping into the witness box himself in support of his case. Respondent 3 did not produce any evidence whereas respondent No. 1 examined in rebuttal 31 witnesses including himself. 4. Manifestly, seven paras of the petition regarding which the petitioner has been allowed to adduce evidence contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of seven different incidents which, according to the petitioner, constitute corrupt practice as defined in section 123 of the Act. It is, therefore, proposed to take each allegation separately for consideration and decision as to whether the petitioner has succeeded in establishing his case. Before the allegations contained are dealt-with para wise, the law pertaining to the standard of proof required for establishing allegation ns of corrupt practice may be briefly adverted to. It is now well-settled that such allegations are quasi-criminal charges and that the standard of proof required in support thereof would be as in a criminal charge. Thus, the standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt as distinguished from that reflected in the principle of preponderance of probabilities in civil action. It is now well-settled that such allegations are quasi-criminal charges and that the standard of proof required in support thereof would be as in a criminal charge. Thus, the standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt as distinguished from that reflected in the principle of preponderance of probabilities in civil action. If the evidence, when evaluated on the whole, admits of two views, ore in favour of the elected candidate should be preferred and election should not be declared void. Reference in this connection may be bad to the law laid down in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and otners, AIR 1985 SC 89, and Earn Singh and others v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3. The allegations contained in para 4 (a) may now be taken up. Para 4 (a) reads s —. 4 (a) "That on 2-2-1990 at Village Dhameta the respondent No. 1 promised construction of a culvert on a nallah near the Sr. secondary school situated in the said village, in a meeting, at about 11 p. m. which was attended amongst others, by Shri Rajinder Pal Dogra and Arvind Mahajan of village Dhameta. The villagers present at the meeting were told by the respondent No. 1 on the said date that if they vote for him, he is ready and willing to bear the entire cost on construction of the said culvert. The said offer of the respondent No. 1 was willingly accepted by the villagers present and construction of the said culvert was started by the respondent No 1 through his men on and from the following day. Not only building materials have been provided by the respondent No I but he has also borne the cost of construction also. This act of the respondent No. 1 amounts to bribery and is a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (1) (A) (b) (ii) of the Act. At the time of arguments, Shri M. L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that part (ii) of sub-clause (b1 of section 123 (1) (A) of the Act is not applicable to the facts alleged in this para inasmuch as no bribery has been committed as a reward to an elector for having voted or refrained from voting- Instead, the purpose was to induce the electors to vote at the election in favour of respondent 1. The corrupt practice of bribery is, therefore, covered by section 123 (1) (A) (b). Dr. Rajan Sushant (PW I) has stated on oath that respondent 1 held a meeting on 2-2-1990 at about 11 p, m. near Primary School/Senior Secondary School of village Dhameta and that he sought votes from all those who were present in lieu of a promise that he would construct a culvert on the Nullah near the Senior Secondary School of village Dhameta and would meet the expenses from his own pocket. He has, however, admitted in his cross-examination that he was personally not present at village Dhameta on 2-2-1990. If so, his statement is of no use whatsoever on the point under determination. The only witness examined by the petitioner in support of his case set out in para 4 (a) Is PW 2 Shri Arvind Mahajan. Shri Mahajan has deposed that he was passing near Senior Secondary School of village Dhameta on 2-2-1990 at about 11 p. m. when he found that an election meeting was being held under a mango tree nearby. He joined the gathering. Respondent 1 and Shri Krishan Kumar Vij were sitting on the dias and there were 10 or IS persons present there. It was then that respondent 1 told the gathering in his presence that he was prepared to build the culvert on the Nullah near the Senior Secondary School of village Dhameta if those who were present voted in his favour. The gathering consisted of the voters of the village. According to this witness, the voters started whispering to each other and agreed to vote for respondent 1 if he was prepared to get the culvert constructed and met the expenses from his own pocket. This ultimately resulted in respondent 1 starting the construction work on the following day. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that he worked as polling agent of the petitioner at polling station Dhameta. His testimony therefore, has to be evaluated and accepted with due care and caution But he stands effectively rebutted by Shri Krishan Kumar Vij who has been examined as RW 10. Shri Vij is the President of Gram Panchayat Dhameta as also Chairman of Panchayat Samiti Nagrota Surian. His testimony therefore, has to be evaluated and accepted with due care and caution But he stands effectively rebutted by Shri Krishan Kumar Vij who has been examined as RW 10. Shri Vij is the President of Gram Panchayat Dhameta as also Chairman of Panchayat Samiti Nagrota Surian. He has categorically stated that it was the Panchayat Samiti which had proposed the construction of the culvert in question in January 1989 and had sent the proposal to the Deputy Commissioner Kangra. The scheme was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner in the month of August 1989 and the construction material was purchased and placed at the construction site in December, 1969. The actual construction work started in January, 1990 and was completed in the following month. Funds for this construction, according to Shri Vij, were received from the office of the Deputy Commissioner Kangra and muster-rolls had also been prepared. He further stated that he had brought the entire original file containing complete records of the case with him in the Court on the day he was being examined It is note-worthy that no question was put to him in cross-examination which could falsify him about the culvert having been constructed at the instance of the Panchayat Samiti from the funds made available by the Deputy Commissioner Kangra. It is explicit in his statement that he invited the learned Counsel for the petitioner to inspect the original file containing complete records and assure himself about the truthfulness of his statement from the official record. That no such exercise was made on behalf of the petitioner is ample proof of correctness of the testimony of Shri Vij on this point. Otherwise too, the statement of PW 2 Shri Arvind Mahajan is totally vague pertaining to respondent 1 having met any expenses from his own pocket on the construction of the culvert. . While in the witness box, respondent 1 has taken the position that he held no meeting on 2-2-1990 at village Dharaeta and, therefore the question of offering any inducement to the villagers so as to vote for him would not arise. He is also supported by RW 5 Shri Parkash Singh This being the entire evidence it is very much difficult to hold that the allegation of corrupt practice of bribery’ as contained in para 4 (a) of the petition stands proved. He is also supported by RW 5 Shri Parkash Singh This being the entire evidence it is very much difficult to hold that the allegation of corrupt practice of bribery’ as contained in para 4 (a) of the petition stands proved. Petitioner, therefore, must fail as faraslhis allegation is concerned- 5. Next comes para 4 (c). It reads: — 4(c) "That on 25-2-1990 the respondent No. I went to Dhameta village, a segment in the aforementioned Assembly constituency where at a meeting of the Mahila Mandal the respondent No. 1 himself offered a cheque of Rs. 5.000 to the Pradban and General Secretary of the Mahila Mandal. Dhameta to induce them directly for voting in favour of the respondent No 1 at the forthcoming election. Shri Subhash Dogra resident of Village and Post Office Dhameta and Sh. Vipin Purohit resident of Village and Post Office Dhameta were present near to this meeting However, the Pradhan and the General Secretary of the said Mahila Mandal refused to accept the offer of gift. This amounts to a corrupt practice of giving bribery within the meaning of section 123 (1) (A) (b) (ii) of the said Act." Thus, it has been clearly averred in the petition that Mehla Mandal refused to accept the offer of gift viz cheque of Rs. 5,000 and also that the offer had been made to the Pradhan and the General Secretary of the Mandal While adducing evidence the petitioner has given a meaningful twist to the refusal of Mehla Mandal to accept the offer inasmuch as a new case has been introduced that a promise was made to cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and that it was stated that the amount may be given to them afterwards in a lumpsum meaning thereby that the functionaries of the Mehla Mandal expected an amount more than Rs. 5 000 In this connection, reference be had to the statements of PW 3 Shri Subhash Doera and PW 4 Sbri Vipin Purohit in addition to the testimony of the petitioner himself. Since the petitioner has admitted that he was not present in the meeting, his evidence is in the nature of hearsay. 5 000 In this connection, reference be had to the statements of PW 3 Shri Subhash Doera and PW 4 Sbri Vipin Purohit in addition to the testimony of the petitioner himself. Since the petitioner has admitted that he was not present in the meeting, his evidence is in the nature of hearsay. Shri Subhash Dogra has admitted in bis cross-examination that he is an office bearer of the B J P PW 4 Shri Vipin Purohit is his brother and also a chance witness The evidence in totality, therefore, is not of such a nature so as to .answer the standard of proof required in proving an allegation of corrupt practice It is more so in this case because the Pradhan of Mehla Mandal who had been summoned on behalf of the petitioner was given up as having been won over whereas its General Secretary was examined by respondent No 1 She is RW 2 Smt. Buhlo Devi who has categorically denied any meetine having been held on 25-2-1990 or there being any offer of a cheque of Rs. 5,000 to the Mandal by respondent No. 1. Respondent No 1 has also deposed that he attended no meeting at village Dhameta on 25-2-1990 and that he offered no cheque to the functionaries of the Mehla Mandal In fact, he does not have a cheque book at ail. PW 4 Shri Sabhash Doera who was stated to bs present alongwith respondent No. 1 in the meeting on 25-2-1990, bas also supported respondent No. 1. The witnesses examined by the petitioner also could not say as to who was the person to whom the cheque in question had been offered This being the entire evidence in the matter, it can be concluded without any hesitation whatsoever that the charge of corrupt practice contained in para 4 (c) has not been proved. 6. Next allegation of corrupt practice is contained in para 6 of the election petition. It runs as follows:— 6. "That in connection with the order of the Ld Asstt. Returning Officer-cum-Naib Tehsildar Fatehpur, dated 13-1-1990, wherein the names of new voters were verified, the copy of the said order is annexed herewith as Annexure P/l, alongwith evidence and objections of different persons including Sh. It runs as follows:— 6. "That in connection with the order of the Ld Asstt. Returning Officer-cum-Naib Tehsildar Fatehpur, dated 13-1-1990, wherein the names of new voters were verified, the copy of the said order is annexed herewith as Annexure P/l, alongwith evidence and objections of different persons including Sh. Giridhar Gopal, a prominent Congress (I) leader of the constituency, the petitioner had gone on 11-1-1990 to the office of the Ld Asstt, Returning Officer being MLA of the constituency and then Sh. Giridhar Gopal threatened the petitioner In the presence of S/Sh.,1. Kuldip Singh resident of Village Hadwal, 2. Inderjit 3. Dharam Singh, 4 Kes Raj residents and shop keepers of village Fatehpur, by saying that "Yen Election Bara Khuni election Hoga Aur Hum Jitne Ke Lie Har Tarika Apnayenge Aur Yadi Hamen Haar Ke Lakshan Nazor Aye to Maine, Sujan Singh tatha Krishan Vij Ne Faishla kar Liya Hai Ki Aap ko Goli se Ura Denge." Having thus been threatened, the petitioner, on being asked by the respected Deputy Commissioner Kangra as to whether there was any law and order problem in the constituency, applied on 7-2-1990 to the respected Deputy Commissioner Kangra for providing security to the petitioner. Thereafter the security guard was provided to the petitioner." The plain reading of the averments reproduced above would show that the threat in question is alleged to have been made by Shri Giridhar Gopal (who was examined as RW 9 on behalf of respondent No. 1). Secondly, para 6 as it is, does not contain t single word that this threat was held by RW. 9 Shri Giridhar Gopal with the consent of respondent No. 1. It was perhaps on this account that learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 put the following question to the petitioner while cross-examining him |~ Question:—Can you give the reason why it has not been stated in para 6 of the Election Petition that Girdhar Gopal extended the threat with the consent of respondent No. 1? The above question was disallowed by the Court with the following observations:— Courts order:—The question is disallowed for the reason that such an allegation has been made in para 3 of the Election Petition as held by me in para 6 of the order dated 3-6-1991. The above question was disallowed by the Court with the following observations:— Courts order:—The question is disallowed for the reason that such an allegation has been made in para 3 of the Election Petition as held by me in para 6 of the order dated 3-6-1991. Notwithstanding the position as it emerges out of terms of the Court order reproduced above, there is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioiser had to adduce evidence and show that the alleged threat had been made by Shri Girdhar Gopal with -the consent of respondent No. 1. It is here that the petitioner must fail because no evidence whatsoever about this consent has been adduced by him at the time of leading evidence so-much-so that he himself has also not breathed 8 single word about it when in witness box He has examined two other witnesses, namely, PW 5 Shri Kuldip Singh and PW 6 Shri Inderjit in support of his case brought out in para 6 but both these witnesses are also totally silent in the matter of consent. PW 6 Inderjit has referred to some consent given by respondent No 1 through general directions issued by him to his followers on 8-2-1990 but these directions, even if held to be proven, cannot apply to an incident which took place on 13-1-1990. Shri Sujan Singh Pathania (RW 1) made a positive statement during his examination-in-chief that he gave no consent to Shri Giridbar Gopal to hold any threat to the petitioner on 11-1-1990 or any other date. Respondent No. 1 was not asked a single question in his cross-examination so as to challenge his above statement In addition respondent No. I has examined RW 7 Shri Ram Nath, RW 8 Shri Vishwa Nath and RW 9 Shri Girdhar Gopal belonging to village Fatehpur whereas the threat is alleged to have been made in the office of Naib Tehsildar-cum-Asstt. Returning Officer during the course of verification of list of new voters. All these witnesses have categorically denied that any threat was made to the petitioner. Returning Officer during the course of verification of list of new voters. All these witnesses have categorically denied that any threat was made to the petitioner. No dent could be made in their testimony during their cross-examination, though much weight cannot be attached to such type of oral evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties including that of respondent No 1 The petitioner did move an application before the Deputy Commissioner Kangra for furnishing him security but this application was moved on 7-2-1990 whereas the threat is stated to have been extended on 11-1-1990. Moreover, there is no mention of this threat having been made in the said application. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain this lacuna in his cross-examination but he failed to come out with any valid explanation He did state that he had orally told Shri S. Roy, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra as also S. D. M. Nurpur about this threat but both these witnesses have not been examined by him in support of his case. More serious than that is the failure of the petitioner to examine the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Asstt Returning Officer Fatehpur who was admittedly present at the time when this threat was extended. In view of the nature of the evidence which has been placed by the parties before this Court in support of their respective cases, it is rather difficult to hold that the threat in question was held out as a matter of fact. It is another matter that the holding out of such threat will be totally immaterial due to failure of the petitioner to prove that this was done with the consent of respondent No. 1. It may be stated here that respondent No, 1 had not appointed any election agent during his election and this fact is not disputed. 7. There is yet another reason why the allegations made in para 6 cannot amount to corrupt practice as defined in section 123 of the Act. Shri M. L Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the aforesaid threat, if established, would amount to undue influence as defined in section 123 (2) of the Act because it amounted to interference with the free exercise of an electoral right. Shri M. L Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the aforesaid threat, if established, would amount to undue influence as defined in section 123 (2) of the Act because it amounted to interference with the free exercise of an electoral right. Now, electoral right has been defined in section 79 (d) of the Act, It means "the right of a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate, or to vote or refrain from voting at an election." Since the incident is of 11-1-1990 and the nominations were riled somewhere in the first week of February 1990 Shri Sharma urged that implicit in the threat was to interfere with the right of the petitioner to stand as a candidate. In my opinion, this is a far-fetched interpretation because the exact words stated to have been used by Shri Gindhar Gopal do not admit of any such meaning. The Court has also to be extremely careful in drawing inferences or giving extended interpretations to the language actually used which is the subject-matter of. a corrupt practice in an election petition. If the threat was being extended to the petitioner so as to dissuade from standing as a candidate, it was incumbent upon him to have alleged so specifically in his election petition and thereafter to prove it by adducing evidence. Be that as it may, the petitioner has no case as far as this para is concerned for reasons more than one Accordingly, his case with regard to the averments made in this para cannot be held as proved. 8. The allegations in the next paras viz. para 8, para 8 (a) and para 9 are almost similar in nature. In all the three cases, the election meetings of the petitioner are stated to have been disrupted and in that process the petitioner and his supporters are alleged to have been threatened with injury thereby causing interference with the free exercise of their electoral rights. 9. As has been done earlier, it would be useful to reproduce the contents of the aforesaid paras per verbatim:— 8. 9. As has been done earlier, it would be useful to reproduce the contents of the aforesaid paras per verbatim:— 8. “That on 24-2-1990 at Village Chalwara, a segment in the aforementioned constituency a meeting was to be addressed by the petitioner in the house of Kashmira Singh at about 8 p. m. As soon as the petitioner bad reached the house of the said Kashmira Singh, alongwith his supporters numbering around six persons, including the personal bodyguard of the petitioner, the petitioner found that 50 to 60 supporters and electors had gathered in the house of Kashmira Singh to hear him; Shortly, afterwards, pursuant to the consent of the respondent No. 1 in the form of general directions given as mentioned in paras 7 (page 9) above, about 20 Congress (I) workers, led by Shri Bajar Singh son of Shri Bhagat Singh, resident of village Chalwara, surrounded the house of Shri Kashmira Singh aforementioned. The Congress (I) workers, led by Shri Bajar Singh, were armed with hockeys, sticks and lathis. They surrounded the house of Kashmira Singh and started hurling filthy abuses and warned everyone present in the said house to either come out or face dire consequences The object of the Congress (I) supporters, led by Bajar Singh, was not to allow the election meeting of the petitioner to take place at the house of Kashmira Singh When none came out of the house, they entered the house of Kashmira Singh and started intimidating all those present and forced them to lave. The bodyguard of the petitioner somehow managed to rescue him by making him escape Thereafter, the petitioner, alongwith about five or six persons, entered the house of Kbushi Ram to take shelter there In the meanwhile, the aforementioned Congress (1) supporters came to know that the petitioner had made good his escape to the house of Khushi Ram and, therefore, surrounded his house and started yelling, making loud noises for the purpose of intimidating the petitioner and his supporters. In the meanwhile, having come to know of the incident at Kashmira Singhs house, some supporters of the petitioner came to the house of Shri Kashmira Singh so as to prevent any physical barm being caused to the petitioner. At the house of Shri Kashmira Singh, the supporters of the petitioner, upon learning of his being in the house of Khushi Ram went over there. At the house of Shri Kashmira Singh, the supporters of the petitioner, upon learning of his being in the house of Khushi Ram went over there. The petitioner then came out of the house of Khushi Ram and counselled patience and asked his supporters to remain calm and peaceful despite provocation from the respondent No. ls supporters As the petitioner was going forward towards his car, he was followed by the respondents supporters, led by Shri Bajar Singh As the petitioner reached his car, the tyre of the car, bearing No. DAV-5437, was punctured with a view to prevent the petitioner from proceeding ahead, so as to confine him to one place and causing him a bodily harm. The petitioner was somehow saved by his supporters and bodyguard. The Congress (I) workers led by Bajar Singh, included, among others, were Shri Munsbi Ram Panch, Harnam Singh, Duni Chand son of Mijhar Ram, Daler Singh son of Kirpa Ram, Sham Lal son of Girdhari Lal, and Prakash Chand son of Munshi Ram. Thakur Arjan Singh, Khushi Ram and the security guard of the petitioner were present throughout the incident and they witnessed the entire incident in the said village Chalwara. 8 (a) That on 25-2-1990 at about 2 p.m. about 50 people had gathered at the election meeting of the petitioner in Village Takoli Ghirthan. Even before the meeting was due to start, about 20 Congress (I) supporters, with the consent of the respondent No. 1 in the form of general directions given by him as mentioned in paras 7 (page 9) above, armed with lathis had gathered with the purpose of disturbing the election meeting and causing bodily harm to anyone, who dared to resist them or attempted to foil their design of disturbing the meeting. The electors gathered at the meeting got frightened and made a beeline for leaving the meeting The petitioner also got scared, more so due to the incident of 24-2-1990 at Village Chalwara. Now the Congress (I) supporters tried to block the passage of the petitioner in a bid to encircle him and manhandle him, but their attempt was foiled by the petitioners followers. Among the Congress (!) supporters, those who were identified, were Samarjit Singh S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram, Sh. Rajinder Kumar son of Sn. Kewal Singh, Bhag Singh son of Sh. Now the Congress (I) supporters tried to block the passage of the petitioner in a bid to encircle him and manhandle him, but their attempt was foiled by the petitioners followers. Among the Congress (!) supporters, those who were identified, were Samarjit Singh S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram, Sh. Rajinder Kumar son of Sn. Kewal Singh, Bhag Singh son of Sh. Ram Chand, Vijay Kumar son of Shri Hari Chand and Kulbhushan son of Sh. Tirath Ram, Harbans Singh son of Rikhy Ram. This incident was witnessed by, among others, Thakur Chanda Singh son of Shri Jai Singh, resident of Village Takoli Sakrialan. Shri Dumanu Ram son of Sh. Milo Ram, resident of Takoli Sahrialan, Sh. Shiv Dutt son of Sh. Duni Chand, resident of village Paroul. 9. That on 19-2-1990 at about 9 p. m. an election meeting of the petitioner was due to be held at Village Sugbal, Gram Panchayat Maira, a segment of the Assembly Constituency aforementioned, when Sh. Balbir Singh Pradhan, Gram Panchayat of Maira, who is an active Congress (I) worker, along with 15 to 20 goondas armed with lathis and hockeys under the influence of liquor, surrounded the meeting premises, where 50 electors had gathered to hear the petitioner. This incident prevented the petitioner from delivering his election speech and was in furtherance of the strategy chalked out by the respondent No. 1 to disturb the election meetings of the petitioner whenever and wherever they were held. The respondent No. 1 bad given consent to disturb the election meetings of the petitioner, as set out in paras 7 (page 9) above. Dr Baldev Raj and Chaudhary Des Raj, both of Village Maira and Shri Ganesh Dutt of Village Bharmar as well as the security guard of the petitioner witnessed the incident. The respondent No. 1 bad given consent to disturb the election meetings of the petitioner, as set out in paras 7 (page 9) above. Dr Baldev Raj and Chaudhary Des Raj, both of Village Maira and Shri Ganesh Dutt of Village Bharmar as well as the security guard of the petitioner witnessed the incident. The Congress (I) supporters tried to man-handle the petitioner, but a ring was formed around the petitioner by the supporters to prevent any physical harm being caused to him- He was thus luckily saved from the hands of the Congress (I) supporters, whose consistent endeavour was to incapacitate the petitioner, so that he is unable to carry on his election campaign." The first ground on which the petitioner must fail with respect to the allegations contained in these three paras is that neither it has been properly alleged that the election meetings aforesaid were disturbed and threats of injury to the petitioner and his supporters given with the consent of respondent No 1 nor cogent evidence has been let in for proving such consent. In the election petition, the consent of respondent No, 1 regarding incidents incorporated in the above-mentioned three paras have been alleged to be in the form of general directions given as mentioned in paras 7 (page 9)..................’.. In para 7 at page 9 of the election petition, what is alleged is that respondent No. 1 inaugurated his election office in village Fatehpur on 8-2-1990 where about 500 persons including his supporters were present. "The respondent exhorted his supporters that they should see to it that he is elected somehow or anyhow and threatened the public at large that, in case he is not elected, there shall be a phatveh (massacre)." The above general directions are being pressed into service by the petitioner as indicative of respondent No. Ps consent for whatever was done during the incidents narrated in three paras aforesaid. The allegation pertaining to respondent No 1 having threatened the public at large about a massacre in case he is not elected has no nexus with according his consent. Therefore, all that remains of what he is alleged to have stated in para 7 (page 9) is that he exhorted his supporters that they should see to it that he is elected somehow or anyhow. Therefore, all that remains of what he is alleged to have stated in para 7 (page 9) is that he exhorted his supporters that they should see to it that he is elected somehow or anyhow. Respondent No. 1 has totally denied having inaugurated any election office at Fatehpur on 8-2-1990 or having extended any such advice or threat to the public at large but, leaving that aside, advising his supporters to get him elected somehow or anyhow is not the same thing as according them his consent to hold out threats of causing injury to the petitioner or his supporters and to interfere with the free exercise of their electoral rights. The words alleged to have been used by respondent No. I ere too vague and admit of no such interpretation. And then, even if such interpretation is held to be available, there is no reliable evidence to uphold this allegation having been proved. 10. As regards para 8, the petitioner has examined PW 11 Shri Arjun Singh, PW 12 Shri Khushi Ram and PW 13 Shri Bnubneshwar Singh. Regarding para 8 (a) PW 16 Thakur Chanda Singh has given his testimony in support of the petitioner whereas on para 9 the witnesses examined by the petitioner are PW 14 Shri Ganesh Dutt and PW 15 Shri Baldev Raj. The petitioner has, of course, stepped into the witness box himself also to support his case with respect to these three incidents. On the other hand, RW 1 Shri Sujan Singh Pathania in addition to stepping himself into the witness box, has examined RW 13 Shri Malha Singh, RW 14 Shri Bajar Singh, RW 15 Shri Munshi Ram, RW 16 Shri Harnam Singh and RW 17 Shri Dun! On the other hand, RW 1 Shri Sujan Singh Pathania in addition to stepping himself into the witness box, has examined RW 13 Shri Malha Singh, RW 14 Shri Bajar Singh, RW 15 Shri Munshi Ram, RW 16 Shri Harnam Singh and RW 17 Shri Dun! Chand on para 8 t RW 19 Snri Saraarjit Singh, RW 20 Shri Bhag Singh and RW 21 Shri Vijay Kumar on para 8 (a) and RW 22 Shri Balbir Singh, RW 23 Shri Asa Ram and Shri Tariok Chand on para 9, Whereas the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner have tried to prove what has been alleged in the above paras, the defence resorted to by respondent No. 1 and supported by his witnesses is that no meeting whatsoever took place on the dates the incidents/meetings are alleged to have taken place in the villages given by the petitioner and that respondent No 1 had not visited those villages on the days in question at all. It is not difficult to see that the witnesses of the parties, more or less, are divided on party lines and it would not be safe to place much reliance on them either way. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot but fail because it is difficult to conclude that any person held out threats to cause injury to the petitioner and/or his supporters with the purpose of interfering with the free exercise of their electoral rights and muchless that such acts were done with the consent of .respondent No. 1. 11. The petitioner was admittedly accompanied throughout by his security-guard PW 13 Shri Bhubneshwar Singh and he was a witness to all these incidents. It is, therefore, surprising that no complaint or report of any kind was lodged with the authorities concerned about these incidents. . 12. It may be noticed here that the allegations pertaining to disrupting meetings may constitute an electoral offence but it is not a corrupt practice, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh and others, AIR 1985 SC 89, The petitioners version with respect to some persons having interfered with the free exercise of his electoral right and those of his supporters is also not borne out from the evidence. Therefore, as stated above, the petitioner must fail with respect to his case put forward in paras 8, 8 (a) and 9. 13. Therefore, as stated above, the petitioner must fail with respect to his case put forward in paras 8, 8 (a) and 9. 13. Para 15 contains the last allegation of corrupt practice against respondent No. 1. This para is as follows:— "15. That in the election meetings the respondent No. 1 used to carry a book of Geeta (Hindu Holy Script) and used to induce the people to swear in the name of Geeta to vote for him by the method of deriving compasstion for him by showing the people the scar on the stomach due to operation of appendicitis. That further, in pursuance to the dubious strategy adopted by him which he used almost in all the meetings to extend an option to the electors that if they do not want to vote for him then each one of them should give him a bundle of woods so that he might set-up a pyre with those bundles of wood to immolate himself which he, in the event of his defeat would consider better than to suffer the ignominy of losing the election. Not only this, he even threatened the voters of the said consequences of his immolation when he would resurrect in the form of a snake and bite ail those who would have not voted for him or if they wanted to vote for him then they should swear in the name of Geeta which he also carried in the other hand. Thus it is very obvious that using the strategy of making the people bound on the name of God by making the electors swear in the name of Geeta by touching Geeta with their hands, it became very difficult for the people (i.e. the electors) to commit perjury by acting contrary after swearing in the name of holy Geeta. Ths people present as witnesses on some of these meetings when such above referred dubious tactics and methodology employed by the respondent No. 1 were:— (a) At village Khatiyar Mr. Ganesh Dutt. Chaudhry Kuldip Kumar and Chaudhry Swaroop all residents of village Khatiyar were witnesses. (b) At village Satbana Sh. Hans Raj, Sh. Malkiat Singh, Sh. Dhani Ram all residents of village Sathana and Sh. Satish Kumar resident of village Koral were witnesses. (c) At village Badukhar Chaudhry Baldev Raj alias Dev Raj and Rajinder Kumar Pradhan Gram Panchayat both residents of village Badukhar and Sh. (b) At village Satbana Sh. Hans Raj, Sh. Malkiat Singh, Sh. Dhani Ram all residents of village Sathana and Sh. Satish Kumar resident of village Koral were witnesses. (c) At village Badukhar Chaudhry Baldev Raj alias Dev Raj and Rajinder Kumar Pradhan Gram Panchayat both residents of village Badukhar and Sh. Rakesh Kumar resident of village Agahar and Shri Swaroop resident of village Dhaulpur were witnesses. (d) At village Patta Sh. Paras Ram resident of village Jhular, Sh. Mohinder Paul and Sh. Paras Ram resident of village Palli were witnesses. Thus by deploying these methods and the dubious strategy the respondent No. 1 created a belief and/or tried to creat a belief in the mind of electors that they shall become an object of spiritual censor or rendered an object of divine divine displeasure, which constitute an offence under section 123 Clause (2) (a) (ii) and section 123 Clause (3) of the Act. This is also explained in: (1) India Today (English Edition) of March 31, 1-990 page 20 under title "Stinging Speaches", the copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure P/2. (2) Dainik Tribune (Hindi Edition) of 21st February, 1990(7) under title "Vote Nahin To Lakri Ka Gathhar De Do" the copy of the said title is annexed herewith as Annexure P/3. Such like Press reports have also appeared in some papers also, the copy of which could not, of today, be procured by the petitioner despite his best efforts and therefore, the petitioner reserves his right to submit the same before this Honbie Court as and when he is able to procure them " The petitioner has supported his case in examination-in-chief but has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present on any of the occasions when respondent 1 made the utterances in question. Those who were present are stated to be PW 7 Shri Ganesh Dutt, PW 8 Shri Malkiat Singh, PW 9 Shri Rakesh Bharti and PW 10 Shri Rajinder Kumar. Out of these witnesses the testimony of PW 9 Shri Rakesh Bharti deserves mentioning. Shri Bharti is a Press Reporter of Newspapers Dainik Tribune, Punjab Kesri and Him Kesri. He has proved that he was the author of the report which was published in Dainik Tribune and which is at Ex. P/2. Although respondent No. i has not been mentioned in this report by name, it may be referring to him. Shri Bharti is a Press Reporter of Newspapers Dainik Tribune, Punjab Kesri and Him Kesri. He has proved that he was the author of the report which was published in Dainik Tribune and which is at Ex. P/2. Although respondent No. i has not been mentioned in this report by name, it may be referring to him. All the same, the statement of this witness is second hand secondary evidence and, in any case, much weight cannot be attached to it at all since he has stated in his examination-in-chief itself that what is stated in Report Ex. P-2 was not spoken by respondent No. 1 in his presence (see para 447 of AIR 1969 SC 1201. Explaining as to how he complied this Report, he stated that it was his duty as a Press Correspondent to visit various places and find out what has been happening and that the Report covered those findings. Thus, the contents of Report Ex P-2 cannot be held to be of much assistance to the petitioner because the persons from whom the Press Correspondent gathered the Information have been kept back. It could be taken into account alongwith other evidence if the said other evidence is worthy of credence. Here, the witnesses who have supported the petitioner and have categorically testified about their presence in the meetings addressed by respondent No. 1 cannot be believed for the same reasons as have been given against paras 8, 8 (a) and 9 Respondent I has also rebutted these allegations by examining RW25 Shri Birbal, RW 26 Shri Nand Lal, RW 27 Shri Bengali Ram, RW 28 Shri Milkai Ram, RW 29 Shri Paras Ram, RW 30 Shri Chhaju Ram and RW 31 Shri Ashwani Kumar in addition to himself stating on oath that he did not show Geeta or the scar on his stomach as a result of the appendicitis operation to any of the voters. He did not ask for either vote or bundle of wood so that he could burn himself or that he would be reborn as a snake and bite all those who had not voted for him. The standard of proof being what it is, it cannot be held that the allegations contained in para 15 stand proved. 14. He did not ask for either vote or bundle of wood so that he could burn himself or that he would be reborn as a snake and bite all those who had not voted for him. The standard of proof being what it is, it cannot be held that the allegations contained in para 15 stand proved. 14. Before parting with this case, one sentence uttered by the petitioner towards the end of his examination-in-chief on the point of consent may be referred to. His statement is : "All the above incidents which I have narrated were done with the consent and at the instance of respondent 1 " Such a statement without disclosing the date and time when the consent in question was accorded and the persons to whom this consent was given is of no significance whatsoever. 15. In view of the above discussion Issue No. 1 is decided against the petitioner. Issue No. 2: Relief: As a result of the decision against Issue No. 1 the election petition is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed as Rs. 1,500. Registry would take follow-up action as prescribed under the Act. Petition dismissed.