N. B. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ONE of the constituencies which went to poll at the time of the last general election to the State Legislative Assembly held on 27 February 1990 was 99-Dhanera Legislative Assembly Constituency of Banaskantha District. The petitioner the respondent no. 1 and nine other candidates had ultimately remained in the fray after the date stipulated for withdrawal of the nominal papers. The respondent no. 1 was declared elected to the Legislative Assembly from the said Constituency with 42 252 votes secured by him followed by the petitioner who was declared to have secured 40 49 votes. The other nine candidates fared very badly and lost their respective deposits. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a declaration that the election of the respondent no. 1 was void. This the petitioner has done on the ground that the respondent no. 1 his election agent one Mr. R. D. Rajgor and other workers of the party of the respondent no. 1 with the consent of the respondent no. 1 and/or his election agent had indulged in the corrupt practices of appealing to the voters to vote for the respondent no. 1 in the name of the caste of the respondent no. 1 as also in the name of Hindu religion and of exercising undue influence resorting to booth-capturing and bogus voting. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY the respondent no. 1 had contested the election on the ticket of the Bhartiya Janata Party (B. J. P.) and the petitioner had contested it on the ticket of the Indian National Congress. The respondent no. 2 and the petitioner are both Hindus but the respondent no. 1 belongs to Anjana Patel caste while the petitioner belongs to Rabari caste. It may be noted that besides the respondent no. 1 the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 are also impleaded as parties to this petition and it is averred that both of them had initially filed nomination papers from the same Constituency but had subsequently withdrawn the same within the prescribed period and had thereafter worked for the success of the respondent no. 1 at the election. It is stated that the respondent no. 2 had actually filed nomination paper on the B. J. P. ticket but he had subsequently withdrawn the same in favour of the respondent no. 1 on the directive of his party. 1 at the election. It is stated that the respondent no. 2 had actually filed nomination paper on the B. J. P. ticket but he had subsequently withdrawn the same in favour of the respondent no. 1 on the directive of his party. Both these respondents are alleged to have actively helped the respondent no. 1 in Committing corrupt practices to further the prospects of the respondent no. 1 at the election. ( 3 ) THE petitioners case is that the aforesaid Dhanera Constituency covers 165 polling booths or villages and a large number of these villages have a substantial population of Anjana Patel voters and Anjana Patels have a dominant influence at least in these villages. In the petition the petitioner has mentioned names of 43 villages where according to have Anjana Patels have a substantial population. It is alleged that in these 43 villages dominated by Anjana Patel caste people and voters the respondent no. 1 and his election agent as also the respondent no. 1s workers with the consent of the respondent no. 1 and/or his election agent had appealed to the voters to cast their votes in favour of the respondent no. 1 on the basis that he belongs to Anjana Patel caste. It is also alleged that the respondent no. 1 had called two meetings of the Anjana Patel leaders on 9-2-90 and 15-2-90 in a students hostel described as Patel Boarding situated at Dhanera and further that at these meetings the respondent no. 1 the respondent no. 2 (also a member of Anjana Patel caste) and other leaders and people of Anjana Patel caste had exhorted the audiences to see that people voted overwhelmingly in favour of the respondent no. 1 on the ground of his caste and to See that those voters who were almost certain to vote for the Congress candidate were prevented from reaching the polling booths. There is an allegation that the participants of the meetings were also asked to see that candidates and workers belonging to other castes were not permitted to enter the villages dominated by Anjana Patels and to undertake election propaganda in the said villages. According to the petitioner a plan was also hatched at the said meetings to capture the booths and to resort to bogus voting so as to further the prospects of the respondent no. 1 at the election. According to the petitioner a plan was also hatched at the said meetings to capture the booths and to resort to bogus voting so as to further the prospects of the respondent no. 1 at the election. According to the petitioner the members of the Anjana Patel caste were incited not to vote for the Congress candidate on the ground that the Congress had declined to give ticket to one Patel Joitabhai Nanjibhai (Anjana Patel) even though in the past Congress ticket was issued to the said Joitabhai and even though Anjana Patels had a sizable population in the constituency. The petitioners allegation is that pursuant to the plan hatched at the aforesaid meetings some leaders of the Anjana Patel caste had actually indulged in booth-capturing and bogus voting at 36 villages mentioned in para 11 of the petition. It is also stated that other candidates and their workers were not allowed to enter and work for the said candidates in the aforesaid villages for canvassing support of the voters. The petitioner has alleged that passions were aroused on caste lines to such an extent that the petitioner had found it difficult if not impossible to mobilise suitable persons to act as his polling agents in the villages mentioned in the petition. He has further stated that his polling agents were forcibly driven out of the polling booths at villages Jivana Thervada Thaver Tetoda Jadiya and Dhaka and thereafter bogus voting was resorted to on a large-scale and there was also booth-capturing. The petitioner has gone to the length of saying that the Returning Officer for the Constituency also belonged to Anjana Patel community and he had deliberately appointed more than 105 members of Patel community to act as Presiding Officers at the time of the election presumably to facilitate the respondent no. 1 s plans of booth-capturing and bogus voting. It is stated that the Presiding Officers so appointed on caste lines conspired with the polling agents and other persons working on behalf of the respondent no. 1 on the election day and had connived at the corrupt practice of booth-capturing and bogus voting resorted to by the respondent no. 1 and his election agent. In the petition the petitioner has mentioned some instances of the alleged driving out of his polling agents from the polling booths and of booth-capturing and bogus voting. 1 on the election day and had connived at the corrupt practice of booth-capturing and bogus voting resorted to by the respondent no. 1 and his election agent. In the petition the petitioner has mentioned some instances of the alleged driving out of his polling agents from the polling booths and of booth-capturing and bogus voting. In this connection it is stated that the respondent no. 3 had actively indulged in booth-capturing and bogus voting at villages Ramsan Bhakhadiyal Ghana Jadiyali and Kotada as they were the villages where he could exert a lot of influence being the ex-Jagirdar of the said villages. ( 4 ) SO far as appealing in the name of Hindu religion is concerned the main allegations are that 90% of the voters of the aforesaid Constituency are Hindus and the respondent no. 1 his election agent and his workers and supporters with the consent of the respondent no. 1 and/or his election agent had delivered inflammatory and firey speeches arousing the religious feelings of Hindus and had also distributed pamphlets and played audio and video cassettes containing appeals to the Hindus to vote for the B. J. P. candidate i. e. the respondent no. 1. According to the petitioner the respondent no. 1 and his election agent and his workers with the consent of the respondent no. 1 and/or his election agent had gone to the people saying that the Congress party was anti-Hindu and the B. J. P. was determined to see that Ram Temple was erected at Ayodhya after demolishing Babri Maszid and to see that the country was converted into a Hindu Rastra. In this connection a reference is made to the two functions held by Vishwa Hindu Parishad etc. one at Palanpur in Banaskantha District and one at Ahmedabad and it is stated that Video and Audio cassettes of the said functions which had the effect of arousing communal passions among Hindus and create anti-Muslim feelings among them were circulated and played on a large scale in the Constituency. The petitioner has purported to give in the petition the detailed particulars of the corrupt practices allegedly resorted to by the respondent no. 1 his election Agent and others with the consent of the respondent no. 1 and/or his election agent but it may not be necessary to mention these particulars at this stage. The petitioner has purported to give in the petition the detailed particulars of the corrupt practices allegedly resorted to by the respondent no. 1 his election Agent and others with the consent of the respondent no. 1 and/or his election agent but it may not be necessary to mention these particulars at this stage. I will advert to these particulars while appreciating the evidence on record. ( 5 ) THE respondent no. 1 has filed his written statement at Ex. 12 and he has categorically denied all allegations of corrupt practices levelled against him in the petition. I may not for the sake of brevity refer to his denials individually here. Suffice it is to say that he has controverted the entire case of the petitioner as to the perpetration of any corrupt practice by him or by his election agent or by any other persons with his or his election agents consent so as to further his prospects at the election. The respondent no. 2 has filed his written statement at Ex. 14 and the respondent no. 3 at Ex. 15 and both these written statements support the respondent no. 1 s version that no corrupt practice was indulged in by him or on his behalf by anybody as alleged in the petition. It may be noted here that the respondent no. 1 has also contended that the petition suffers from the infirmity of non-compliance with the provisions of sections 81 82 and 117 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 (the Act for short ). Brother A. P. Ravani J. has framed the following issues on the pleading of the parties: 1 Does the respondent no. 1 prove that the petition suffers from the infirmity of non-compliance with the provisions of sections 81 82 and 117 of the Representation of People Act 1951 ? 2 Does the petitioner prove that the returned candidate (respondent no. 1 ) his election agent and his supporters and workers and other persons with the consent of the returned candidate and/or his election agent have made appeal on the ground of religion and caste of respondent no. 1 for the furtherence of the prospects of his election or for prejudicially affecting the election of the petitioner and other contesting candidates ? 3 Does the petitioner prove that the respondent no. 1 for the furtherence of the prospects of his election or for prejudicially affecting the election of the petitioner and other contesting candidates ? 3 Does the petitioner prove that the respondent no. 1 his election agent his workers and supporters with the consent of respondent no. 1 and/or his election agent were promoting or attempting to promote the feelings of enmity or hatred between Hindus and Muslims as well as Patels and non-Patels and more particularly Patels and Rabaris for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of respondent no. 1 or for prejudicially affecting the election of the petitioner and other contesting candidates ? 4 Does the petitioner prove that respondent no. 1 his election agent and supporters and workers with the consent of respondent no. 1 and his election agent had exercised undue influence with the free exercise of electoral right of the voters and more particularly as alleged in paras 11 to 21 of the petition ? 5 What orders? my findings are: 1 Not pressed 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 As per order below. The following are the reasons for the said findings: reasons issue No. 1: it was conceded by Mr. Patel after persuing the records that all the requirements of sections 81 82 and 117 of the Act have been complied with by the petitioner and Mr. Patel therefore did not press this issuee. Issue No. 2: before I take up for consideration the discussion and appreciation of the evidence on this issue as also other issues it would be advantageous to refer to some decisions of the Supreme Court bearing on the subject of appreciation of evidence and burden of proof in election cases. It will be seen from these decisions that it has been consistently laid down by the Supreme Court in a number of cases that burden of proof resting on a person seeking a declaration of voidness of election is very heavy in the sense that he is required to prove every charge of corrupt practice beyond reasonable doubt. In other words the burden to be discharged by the petitioner in a case like the present one is the same as the burden on the prosecution to prove a criminal charge. In other words the burden to be discharged by the petitioner in a case like the present one is the same as the burden on the prosecution to prove a criminal charge. The first decision which was cited at the Bar in this connection was the decision in the case of D. Venkta Reddy vs. R. Sultan and others (A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 1599) where in it is observed. "in a democracy such as ours the purity and sanctity of elections the sacrosanct and sacred nature of the electoral process must be preserved and maintained. The valuable verdict of the people at the polls must be given due respect and candour and should not be disregarded or set at naught on vague indefinite frivolous or fanciful allegations or on evidence which is of a shaky or prevaricating character. It is well settled that the onus lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out a strong case for setting aside an election. In our country election is a fairly costly and expensive venture and the Representation of People Act has provided sufficient safeguards to make the elections fair and free. In these circumstances therefore election results cannot be lightly brushed aside in election disputes. At the same time it is necessary to protect the purity and sobriety of the elections by ensuring that the candidates do not secure the valuable votes of the people by undue influence fraud communal propaganda bribery or other corrupt practices as laid down in the Act. Another principle that is equally well settled is that the election petitioner in order to succeed must plead all material particulars and prove them by clear and cogent evidence. The allegations of corrupt practices being in the nature of a quasi criminal charge the same must be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Where the election petitioner seeks to prove charge by purely partisan evidence consisting of his workers agents supporters and friends the Court would have to approach the evidence with great care and caution scrutiny and circumspection and would as a matter of prudence though not as a rule of Law require corroboration of such evidence from independent quarters unless the Court is fully satisfied that the evidence is so credit-worthy and true spotless and blemishless cogent and consistent that no corroboration to land further assurance is necessary". ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal vs. Mannalal and Ors. (A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 1886) reproduced with approval the following passage from the case of Rahimkhan vs. Khurshid Ahmed (A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 290) dealing with the appreciation of oral testimony in election cases namely. "we must emphasise the danger of believing at its face value oral evidence in an election case without the backing of sure circumstances or indubitable documents. It must be remembered that corrupt practices may perhaps be proved by hiring half-a-dozen witnesses apparently respectable and dis-interested to speak to short of simple episodes such as that a small village meeting took place where the candidate accused his rival of personal vices. There is no X-ray whereby the dishonesty of the story can be established and if the Court were gullible enough to qulp such oral versions and invalidate elections a new meance to our electoral system would have been invented through the judicial apparatus. We regard it as extremely unsafe in the present climate of kil-kenny cat election competitions and partisan witnesses wearing robes of veracity to upturn a hard won electoral victory merely because lip service to a corrupt practice has been rendered by some sanctimonious witnesses. The court must look for serious assurance unlying circumstances or unimpeachable documents to uphold grave charges of corrupt practices which might not merely cancel the election result but extinguish many a mans public life". In Amolak Chand Chhazad vs. Bhagwandas Arya and Anr (A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 813) also it has been laid down that election petition alleging corrupt practice are proceedings of quasi-criminal nature and burden is on the person alleging corrupt practice to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt. ( 7 ) SIMILARLY it is held in Rajendra Singh Yadav vs. Chandra Sen and Ors. (A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 882) that it is well settled that allegation of corrupt practices have to be made and proved like a charge in a criminal case and that what is not pleaded cannot be allowed to be the subject matter of evidence as also that the allegations must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not merely by way of preponderance of probabilities. It is also pointed out in this case that it is not at all difficult for a defeated candidate to produce a few witnesses in support of allegations of corrupt practice after the event even though the truth may be far different from what they state. In the case of A. Younus Kunju vs. R. S. Unnit and others (A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 960) while reiterating the same position as to the onus of proof to be discharged by the election petitioner the Supreme Court has referring to the evidence before it pointed out"admittedly all these witnesses were the workers of the appellant. There is overwhelming material on the record and even counsel fairly admitted that the election was fought on party basis and there was sharp division of the electorate on the basis of political parties. That being the position workers at the election with party alignment would necessarily be political supporters of the respective candidates and when called as witnesses they would support their stand. Instances are not uncommon where such witnesses support their respective candidates and their cases even though the same be far from truth. In such circumstances we do not think on the oral testimony of these four witnesses the charge of publication of objectional materials can be said to have been established". Of course in the two cases of Ram Sharan Yadav vs. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and others (A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 24) and S. Harcharan Singh vs. S. Sajjan Singh and others (A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 236 ). The Supreme Court has sounded a note of caution by observing that there is no ritualistic formula nor a cut-and- driend test to lay down as to how a charge of undue influence can be proved but if the circumstances taken together lead to the irresistible inference that the voters were pressurised threatened or assaulted at the instance of either the candidate of his supports or agent with his consent or with his agents consent that should be sufficient to vitiate the election of the resumed candidate. It is also pointed out that while insisting on standard of strict proof the court should not extend or stretch this doctrine to such an extreme extent as to make it well-nigh impossible to prove an allegation of corrupt practice because such an approach would defeat and frustrate the very loudable and sacrosanct object of the Act in maintaining purity of the electoral process. This note of caution however does not in any way dilute the doctrine of insistence of proof beyond reasonable doubt in case of allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition. ( 8 ) IT may be mentioned here that the above principle of having to insist on strict proof of allegations of corrupt practices in the present case will be applicable in respect of the burden resting on the petitioner with regard to all the issues namely issues nos. 2 3 and 4 now remaining for consideration. Now so far as appeal in the name of caste of the respondent no. 1 (Anjana Patel) which is one of the corrupt practices alleged to have been resorted to by the respondent no. 1 his election agent and others with the consent of the respondent No. 1 and/or his election agent is concerned the two main incidents which are cited are other two alleged meetings of Anjana Patels and particularly leaders of the said caste said to have been held by respondent no. 1 on 9-2-90 and 15-2-90 at a students hostel referred to as Patel Boarding at Dhanera. It is said that at these meetings the respondent no. 1 and some others is the presence of the respondent no. 1 had exhorted the people attending the meeting not only to vote for the respondent no. 1 on the ground of his being an Anjana Patel but also to see that those who were disposed of to vote for any other candidate were dissuaded and prevented from voting according to their free will. It is alleged that these meetings the audience were also asked to see that other candidates and their workers were not allowed to enter certain villages and to propagate support for other candidates. It is alleged that these meetings the audience were also asked to see that other candidates and their workers were not allowed to enter certain villages and to propagate support for other candidates. These allegations are to be found in para 11 of the petition and before turning to the evidence adduced in an attempt to substantiate the same it may be noted that in the affidavit which is filled with the petition it is clearly stated that the said allegations were based on information received by petitioner and believed to be true by him. There is not the remotest including given anywhere in the petition to show that the petitioner himself had any personal knowledge about the aforesaid two alleged meetings much less about the speeches made at the said meetings or about the plans and conspiracies hatched thereat. This background has to be kept in view while appreciating the evidence on this part of the case and especially the evidence of the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has in his evidence at Ex. 29 repeated the version that there is a predominant population of Anjana Patels in the Constituency and he has stated that people of this caste wield considerable influence 43 villages mentioned in the Constituency. There is no disput about the fact that the petitioner himself belongs to the Rabari caste an the respondent no. 1 belongs to the Anjana Patel caste. According to the petitioner his election office at Dhanera was housed in a building at a short distance from a students hostel known as Patel Boarding at Dhanera and one meeting of Anjana Patels was held at the said place on 9-2-90. He has further stated that some Patel workers supporting him had told him at his office on 9-2-90 that they were about to go to at the meeting and they had left to go to Patel Boarding and he had himself also immediately followed them but had kept standing in front to the Patel Boarding building from where he could see the speakers addressing the meeting. According to him he could see that one of the speakers to address the meeting was the respondent no. 1 and he could also hear the speech delivered by the respondent no. According to him he could see that one of the speakers to address the meeting was the respondent no. 1 and he could also hear the speech delivered by the respondent no. 1 who had in effect stated that the Congress party not given ticket to any member of Anjana Patel caste while the B. J. P. had given him the ticket and so Anjana Patels must ensure his success. According to the petitioner the respondent no. 1 had exhorted the people at the meeting to make every possible endeavour to see that Anjana Patels as well as other voters cast their votes in his favour and if the members of the other case were not disposed to vote for him they should not be allowed to reach the polling booths and instead our people should impersonate them and cast their votes in his favour. The petitioner has put the following words also in the mouth of the respondent no. 1. All the persons belonging to Patel Vansh must vow to vote in my favour and only others may note vote for me and to-day we may disperse only after taking such a vow. The petitioner has further alleged that the Congress had given its ticket only to Anjana Patels at the time of the last two elections and this time it had not given its ticket to any Anjana Patels and so the Anjana Patels must teach a lesson to the Congress by ensuring that not a single vote from Anjana Patel caste members went to the Congress candidate. ( 10 ) IN his examination-in-chief itself the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid meeting was attended by his worker Arjanbhai Patel and his other Patel workers but he has stated that he did not remember the names of his other Patel workers who had attended the meeting besides Arjanbhai Patel. He also says that after returning from the meeting Arjanbhai had told him that the leaders of the caste such as the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 and others had decided that not a single vote of any Patel from the villages dominated by Anjana Pate]s should go to the Congress candidate and that funds should also be collected from the said villages for meeting the election expenses of the respondent no. 1. 1 and the respondent no. 2 and others had decided that not a single vote of any Patel from the villages dominated by Anjana Pate]s should go to the Congress candidate and that funds should also be collected from the said villages for meeting the election expenses of the respondent no. 1. Proceeding further the petitioner has stated that on 10-2-90 or 11-2-90 he and the respondent no. 1 had happened to meet each other on way and at that time he had chided the respondent no. 1 for exerting pressure on his Patel workers to which the respondent no. 1 had responded by saying that all the Patels of Dhanera Constituency had resolved to vote only for him and not a single Patel will vote- for anybody else. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent no. 1 went to the extreme of telling him in no uncertain words that if any Patel did not vote for him he would be ex-communicated and not a single Patel would vote for him (Petitioner) as the petitioner was a Rabari. It may be noted here and now that this attempt on the part of the petitioner to put an admission in the mouth of the respondent no. 1 about the factum of the meeting allegedly held on 9-2-90 as also about the alleged desperate and defiant attitude of the respondent no. 1 on 10-2-90 or 11-2-90 is conspicuous by its total absence in the petition. Otherwise also the conduct attributed by the petitioner to the respondent no. 1 at the time of their alleged chance-meeting on 10-2-90 or 11-2-90 is highly unnatural and grossly improbable considering the fact that the respondent no. 1 is a seasoned political worker since long. In the course of his cross examination the petitioner has expressed his inability to give any explanation for the omission in his election petition to state that he as present at a short distance from the venue of the meeting held at Dhanera on 9-2-90 or even for his omission to state in the petition that he had himself heard the speeches at the said meeting. Similarly he has not given any explanation about his omission in the petition to state the fact that some of his Patel supporters including Arjanbhai had gone to attend the meeting after telling him that they were going to do so. Similarly he has not given any explanation about his omission in the petition to state the fact that some of his Patel supporters including Arjanbhai had gone to attend the meeting after telling him that they were going to do so. On the other hand the petitioner has stated that he had gone towards the venue of the meeting after Arjanbhai and others left for the same and he had leaving aside all his other work kept standing at a short distance therefrom and had even heard the speeches delivered at the meeting he has stated on the other hand that Arjanbhai had given him a report about what was spoken at the said meeting on 9-2-90 itself. If the petitioner had himself heard the speeches at the meeting and seen the persons who had delivered the said speeches there was no reason for him to get a report about the same from Arjanbhai. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has in clear words admitted that on 9-2-90 itself he was convinced that election offence was committed in the meeting of 9 and that he could have lodged a complaint about such an offence but he had never complained to the Police or to any election authority about what according to him had taken place or what was stated at 9-2-90 meeting. He has failed to give any explanation about his omission to state about any chance meeting between him and the respondent no. 1 on 10-2-90 or 11-2-90. ( 11 ) IN his evidence the petitioner has stated that another meeting was held by the respondent no. 1 at the same venue on 15-2-90 and at that time also he had kept standing in front of the venue and seen the respondent no. 1 and other leaders of Anjana Patel caste giving speeches. He says that at that time he had asked his worker Arjanbhai to attend the meeting but Arjanbhai had shown reluctance to do so but then he was prevailed upon by him to attend the meeting and after returning from the meeting Arjanbhai had told him that at the aforesaid meeting held on 15 the respondent no. 1 the respondent no. 1 the respondent no. 2 and one Ramjibhai Patel had told him (Arjanbhai) that if he and other members of the Patel caste who were supporting the Congress candidate did not stop doing so they would all be ex- communicated. His version about the speeches made at the meeting of 15-2-90 is practically the same as his version of the meeting of 9-2-90. As regards this meeting also the petitioner has claimed that he had expressed his dis-approval to the respondent no. 1 when they happened to meet each other by chance on way. The petitioner has stated that he had specifically asked the respondent no. 1 not to exert any pressure in Arjanbhai and his other Patel workers or on any body to vote in the name of their caste. The petitioner says that the respondent no. 1 had however told him that he too would realise that only a Patel candidate could be elected from his Constituency and that he (petitioner) would fail. In connection with this meeting also it is brought on record from the petitioner himself that there is complete omission of any averment in the petition that he (petitioner) had heard the speeches at the said meeting by standing at a short distance from the venue and he has expressed his inability to give any explanation for the said omission. Similarly it is there on record that he has not stated in the petition that Arjanbhai had attended the meeting at his insistence. Similarly there is complete omission in the petition to state that Arjanbhai had reported to him that the respondent no. I and others had threatened him of ex-communication if they did not stop supporting the petitioner. The petitioner has also failed to state as to why he had not mentioned in the petition that it was at this meeting that booth-capturing and bogus-voting were decided upon by the respondent no. 1 and his supporters. He had also no alternative but to admit that he had not made any complaint to any authority about what took place or what has stated at the meeting of 15-2-90. He even says that he had not informed his senior leaders also about the offending speeches made at the meetings of 9-2-90 and 15-2-90. 1 and his supporters. He had also no alternative but to admit that he had not made any complaint to any authority about what took place or what has stated at the meeting of 15-2-90. He even says that he had not informed his senior leaders also about the offending speeches made at the meetings of 9-2-90 and 15-2-90. The cross-examination of the petitioner creates a grave doubt about his version of having been able to hear the speeches made at the alleged meetings of 9-2-9o and 15-2-90 even assuming that such meetings were held. But even if that aspect is kept out of consideration the evidence of the petitioner about these two meetings standing by itself cannot carry any conviction because of the total absence of the version in the petition of personal knowledge of the petitioner about the meetings. The petitioner has stated that there were no loud-speakers kept at the meeting and his version that he could yet hear the speeches appears to be highly improbable. The respondent no. 1 has maintained that no meetings were held at Dhanera on 9-2-90 or 15-2-90 and the petitioner admits that no hand-bills were distributed calling such meetings and it is anybodys guess as to how so many persons from different villages had been to Dhanera to attend the meetings. ( 12 ) THE petitioners version about the aforesaid two meetings and what took place at the said meetings is tried to be buttressed up by the evidence of Arjanbhai Harjibhai recorded at Ex. 39 This Arjanbhai undisputedly belongs to Anjana Patel caste and he claims to have attended one of the meetings of Anjana Patels called by the respondent no. 1 at Patel Boarding building at Dhanera. He does not speak about the date of the meeting namely 9 but says that the respondent no 1 had told the gathering that if they were true Anjana Patels they had to vote for him and one Ramjibhai Dalabhai a leader of Anjana Patel Caste had also addressed the gathering saying that Anjana Patels should vote only for Anjana candidates and not for any other candidate. This is the version of Arjanbhai presumbly of the meeting allegedly held on 9-2-90. This is the version of Arjanbhai presumbly of the meeting allegedly held on 9-2-90. He says that about a week after that meeting another meeting of Anjana Patels was held at the same place and he had attended that meeting also and there also the respondent no. 1 had told the gathering that if they were genuine Anjanas they should vote for him. He then adds that. in the said meeting. the respondent no. 1 had also publicly told the audience that if they did not vote for him the engagements of their sons brothers. daughters and sisters will be broken off. Arjanbhai says that he had given reports about both these meetings to the petitioner. It is not necessary to dwell at any length to point out that there are gross contradictions between the version of the petitioner and Arjanbhai as to what was spoken at the two alleged meetings. The petitioner has nowhere stated that the respondent no. 1 had publicly threatened the people attending the meeting that if they did not vote for him. engagements of their family members will be broken off. Arjanbhai does not anywhere speaks about the presence of the petitioner near the venue of the two meetings; nor does he say that he was reluctant to attend the second meeting but was prevailed upon to do so by the petitioner. This gentleman in his cross-examination has tried to pose as an independent person by stating at first that he was not a Congress supporter or worker at the time of the election in question and was not a member of the Congress even at the time of the recording of his evidence. But then in the next breath he had not admit that he had worked for the success of the Congress candidate at the time of the last general election for the Assembly and he has then climbed own from his posture of independence and clearly admitted that even at present he is a Congress supporter. His evidence brings out that in the last couple of elections to the Assembly or Parliament he has been voting for the Congress candidates if not working for them. He also admits that he knows the petitioner quite well as he has to go to the petitioner to get this works one. His evidence brings out that in the last couple of elections to the Assembly or Parliament he has been voting for the Congress candidates if not working for them. He also admits that he knows the petitioner quite well as he has to go to the petitioner to get this works one. The petitioner is admittedly the President of the Banaskantha Jilla Panchayat for the last four years. Arjanbhai admits that he had to approach the petitioner for having a school set up at their village and had also to approach him or getting good teachers posted in the school at his village. The witness has first claimed ignorance as to who were elected to the Jilla Panchayat from his Constituency but then he has admitted that it was the petitioner who represented his Constituency in the Jilla Panchayat. He also admits that he had assured his support to the petitioner at the time of the election to the Jilla Panchayat. He further admits his knowlede of the fact that the petitioner had contested for jilla Panchayat membership as a Congress man. He says that he had canvassed support for the petitioner for the jilla Panchayat election as the petitioner had contested on Congress ticket. This witness has stated that he had heard that before the 9th February 1990 and 15 February 1990 meetings were held hand- bills about the proposed holding of the meeting indicating its time and place and exhortings Anjana Patels to attend the meetings were distributed in different villages and he himself had set out from his village Bhachalva with the set and sole purpose of attending the meetings and had no other work at Dhanera. He then says that he had first gone to the petitioners election office to take permission from him to attend the meeting and then he has staged a somersalt by saying that he had seen the petitioner standing near the compound gate of his election office and so he had gone to the petitioner. He also says that he had not seen any other Anjana Patel Congress workers at the said meeting of 9th February 1990 As against that we have seen that the petitioners version is that Arjanbhai and others had set out from his election office to go to attend the meeting and had gone there together. He also says that he had not seen any other Anjana Patel Congress workers at the said meeting of 9th February 1990 As against that we have seen that the petitioners version is that Arjanbhai and others had set out from his election office to go to attend the meeting and had gone there together. So far as the next meeting allegedly held on 15th February 1990 is concerned this witness says that he had gone to attend it as his son aged 10 to 11 years had informed him about the meeting and after going to Dhanera he had gone to the petitioners election office just with the idea of meeting the petitioner the petitioner being the president of the Jilla Panchayat. He does not support the version of the petitioner that he was reluctant to attend this meeting and had done so only at the instance of the petitioner. In fact for this meeting also he says that he had set out from his village with in the set purpose of attending the meeting. He also says that he had not found any other Congress Anjana Patel worker at the meeting of 15th February 1990 Unlike the version of the petitioner the version of this witness is that microphones were used at both the meetings and what he has stated in his cross-examination makes it amply clear that no person standing outside the compound wall of the boarding building would be able to hear the speeches delivered in the meeting if microphones were not used. He also does not speak about his having reported to the petitioner about what transpired at the second meeting after that meeting was over. He says that after the second meeting he had not seen the petitioner at Dhanera but had seen him only when the petitioner had visited his village and asked him as to what the respondent no. 1 had spoken at the meeting. The witness was not a summoned witness and his version as to how he came to be informed about this case and about his having to attend the court on a particular date to tender evidence in support of the petitioner also creates a grave doubt about his independence. 1 had spoken at the meeting. The witness was not a summoned witness and his version as to how he came to be informed about this case and about his having to attend the court on a particular date to tender evidence in support of the petitioner also creates a grave doubt about his independence. However even if this aspect of the manner in which he came before this court to tender his evidence is not taken into consideration it is very clear that his evidence contradicts the evidence of the petitioner in very important respects as to the holding of the two meetings and as to what had transpired thereat. It is also obvious from a bare reading of the evidence of this witness that he cannot be treated as an independent witness ital vis-a-vis the petitioners cause against the respondent no. 1. Therefore on taking an overall view of the evidence relating to the two alleged meetings of 9th February 1990 and 15th February 1990 I have no hesitation in holding that the charge in connection therewith is far from having been proved. ( 13 ) THEN so far as these issues are concerned the next question which falls for determination is whether the respondent no. 1 was guilty of the corrupt practice of having made appeals to the electorate on the ground of Hindu religion and of promoting or attempting to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between Hindus and Muslims as also between Patels and Rabaris. ( 14 ) IT may be mentioned here that the same acts and incidents of the respondent no. 1 his election agent and his workers (with the consent of the respondent no. 1 and/or his election agent) alleged to be acts or incidents of appeal in the name of religion are also alleged to be acts or incidents by which the feelings of enmity or hatred between Hindus and Muslims were promoted to be prompted for the furtherance of the election prospects of the respondents no. 1 or for prejudicially affecting the election prospects of the petitioner. Since the evidence on the two points is common the discussion hereafter will dispose of Issues nos. 2 and 3 both. 1 or for prejudicially affecting the election prospects of the petitioner. Since the evidence on the two points is common the discussion hereafter will dispose of Issues nos. 2 and 3 both. ( 15 ) SO far as appeal in the name of Hindu religion and promotion or attempts at promotion of enmity of hatred between Hindus and Muslims are concerned the details are given in paragraphs 23 to 23 (iv) of the petition and I have in a general way adverted to these matters earlier. It is mentioned in the petition that a large bulk of the electorate in the constituency is constituted by Hindus and the respondent no. 1 and his election agent and his workers (with his own consent or with the consent of his election agent) had delivered Hindu and anti-Muslim speeches and also distributed pamphlets and played Audio and Video cassettes arising communal passions. It is alleged that the issue of construction of a Ram Temple at Ayodhya was also exploited to further the prospects of the election of the respondent no. 1 at the election and to mar the prospects of the petitioner by propagating that the B. J. P. which was represent_d by the respondent no. 1 was wedded to the construction of the Ram Temple whereas the Congress party represented by the petitioner was opposed to it. It is also stated that inflammatory slogans arousing the communal passions of Hindus were raised at every meeting and Audio and Video cassettes of certain functions in connection with Ram Janam Bhumi issue which were recorded at Ahmedabad and Palanpur in or about September/october 1989 were played on a large scale in the constituency and especially at Dhanera Valer Panthawad Jerda Nainawa. The allegation is that these cassettes were played at Dhanera on 15-2-90 and 18-2-90 and 24-2-90 in the very presence of the respondent no. 1. It is further alleged that on 17-2-90 the respondent no. 1 had himself exhibited a video cassette at village Valer and his election agent Mr. R. D. Rajgor had played the said cassettee at village panthawada on 20-2-90. The other allegation is that the same cassettee was exhibited at Jerda on 21 in the presence of the respondents nos. 1 and 2 and at Nainawa on 16-2-90 in the presence of the respondent no. 2 with the consent of the respondent no. 1. R. D. Rajgor had played the said cassettee at village panthawada on 20-2-90. The other allegation is that the same cassettee was exhibited at Jerda on 21 in the presence of the respondents nos. 1 and 2 and at Nainawa on 16-2-90 in the presence of the respondent no. 2 with the consent of the respondent no. 1. There are similar allegations made about the playing of audio cassettee regarding the speech of one Morari Bapu on the issue of Ram Temple at Ayodhya. It is stated that audio cassettee regarding the speech of Morari Bapu was such as would arouse communal feelings among Hindus and it also exhorted them to assert themselves by ousting the Congress from power. It is stated that this audio cassettee was played from the main election office of the respondent no. 1 at Dhanera continuously from 9-2-90 to 25 Then there is an allegation of a specific incident said to have taken place on Maha Shivratri day (24 2-90) at village Ravi. It is stated that on that day every year worship of Lord Shiva is done at the Shiv temple of Village Ravi (situated in this constituency) on a large scale. It is stated that accordingly there was a big gathering of Shiv devotees at Ravi on 24-2-90 and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and one Popatbhai Joshi and other B. J. P. workers had attended the function at Ravi and had also addressed meeting of the devotees at 10-00 A. M. on 24-2-90. The allegation is that the respondent no. 1 had told the audience in his speech that the B. J. P. stood for the protection of the Hindu religion and he himself was committed to the construction of Ram Temple at the site of Babri Maszid at Ayodhya whereas the Congress in the name of secularism was actually anti-Hindu. The respondent no. 1 is alleged to have told the audience that he was committed to the establishment of a Hindu Rastra in the country. He is alleged to have stated in the meeting that Muslims were the enemies of Hindus and must be driven out from the country. According to the petition the respondent no. The respondent no. 1 is alleged to have told the audience that he was committed to the establishment of a Hindu Rastra in the country. He is alleged to have stated in the meeting that Muslims were the enemies of Hindus and must be driven out from the country. According to the petition the respondent no. 1 had also distributed two pamphlets among the persons attending the meeting at Ravi and that i. e. pamphlets contained appeals to vote for the B. J. P. candidates in the name of Hindu religion and had aroused anti-Muslim feelings among Hindus. One more allegation in this connection is that the B. J. P. workers were moving in the constituency with an open vehicle on which a cardborad model presumably of the Ram Temple was mounted and slogans to the effect that Ram Temple should be constructed at the site of Babri Maszid were painted or displayed on this vehicle. It may be emphasised that allegation in the petition is that the respondent no. 1 himself had distributed among people the two offending pamphlets at village Ravi on 24-2-90 and it is further stated that on 9-2-90 and 15-2-90 he had distributed these pamphlets at Dhanera also. It is stated that these pamphlets were distributed on a large scale at several villages mentioned in para 24 of the petition. An already stated the allegation is that these pamphlets contained religious appeals and are calculated to arise bitter communal feelings of enmity between Hindus and Muslims. All this is said to have been done to secure votes of Hindu voters for the respondent no. 1. ( 16 ) SO far as the above allegations are concerned the affidavit annexed to the petition shows that the petitioner had subscribed only to the allegation made in para 23 (ii) of the petition i. e. the allegation about the distribution of the audio cassettes of the speech of Morari Bapu as of his personal knowledge. All other allegations in this connection are sworn to by the petitioner only on information received by him. This means that even the allegation in connection with Shiv Ratri gathering at village Ravi on 24-2-90 is sworn to by the petitioner on information received by him and not as of his personal knowledge. All other allegations in this connection are sworn to by the petitioner only on information received by him. This means that even the allegation in connection with Shiv Ratri gathering at village Ravi on 24-2-90 is sworn to by the petitioner on information received by him and not as of his personal knowledge. ( 17 ) OUT of the allegations in connection with the alleged appeal in the name of religion and along arousing of communal passions and feeling of hatred between the Hindus and Muslims the alleged incident at Ravi is more specific and is given more prominance by the petitioner as compared to the other allegations and incidents. I propose therefore first to take up consideration of the evidence relating to the alleged incident at Ravi. The evidence in this connection is adduced by the petitioner himself and his witness Revashankar Bhikharam who is examined at Ex. 40. ( 18 ) IT may be repeated that Shiv Ratri day in 1990 fell on 24-2-90 and there is no dispute about the fact that a large number of devotees of Shiv gather for Shiv Pooja at the Shiv temple at village Ravi on all Shiv Ratri days. Though in the petition the petitioner has no where stated about having any personal knowledge about the alleged incident at Ravi he has come up in his evidence with the version (para 34) that on the relevant day (24-2-90) he had gone to Ravi for his campaign and he had seen the respondent no. 1 also there with his workers. According to the petitioner he was also accompanied by his workers but none of these workers said-to have accompanied him to village Ravi is examined. Revashankar who is examined does not say that he had gone to Ravi in the company of the petitioner or even that he had at all seen the petitioner at Ravi on that day. The petitioner also nowhere states to have been Revashankar at Ravi on 24-2-90. According to the petitioner the respondent no. 1 apart from his other workers was accompanied by the respondent no. 2 also who was admittedly working for the success of the respondent no. 1. The petitioners version is that when he reached the Shiv temple he had seen the respondent no. 2 and then the respondent no. 1 addressing the gathering one after other. The petitioner says that the respondent no. 2 also who was admittedly working for the success of the respondent no. 1. The petitioners version is that when he reached the Shiv temple he had seen the respondent no. 2 and then the respondent no. 1 addressing the gathering one after other. The petitioner says that the respondent no. 1 had spoken to the gathering in the following words :"if we want to protect Hindu religion and to live as Hindus we must oust congress and see to it that Govabhai (petitioner) is defeated. If you vote us to power we will construct Ram Mandir and we promise to establish Hindu Rastra. If congress comes to power there would be Pakistan and all Hindus will be converted to Islam. If we are voted to power we will drive away all Muslims to Pakistan. We also promise to construct Mandir after demolishing Maszid. Whoever is Hindu will not vote for Congress and whoever is Muslim will vote for congress". The petitioner has proceeded further saying that the respondent no. 1 and his workers had then distributed pamphlets Exs. 30 and 31 on a large scale among the people who had gathered at the place. The petitioner goes further and says that in the course of distributing the pamphlets the respondent no. 1 himself had reached him (the petitioner) and had given him the pamphlets (Exs. 30 and 31 ). In his cross-examination the petitioner has denied that he had not been to Ravi; nor had the respondents nos. 1 and 2 been to Ravi on 24-2-90. He states that he had told his Advocate at the time of getting his petition drafted that he had himself been a witness to the aforesaid incident at Ravi. But we have seen above that in the affidavit annexed to the petition the respondent no. 1 has not claimed any personal knowledge about the alleged incident at Ravi and has specifically stated that he had learnt about this incident on information received by him. There is complete absence of any allegation in the petition that the respondent no. 1 and himself given him the pamphlets (Exs. 30 and 31 ). The petitioner admits that these pamphlets were got printed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad but he has disclaimed knowledge if similar pamphlets were distributed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad workers in September 1989 and thereabout. There is complete absence of any allegation in the petition that the respondent no. 1 and himself given him the pamphlets (Exs. 30 and 31 ). The petitioner admits that these pamphlets were got printed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad but he has disclaimed knowledge if similar pamphlets were distributed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad workers in September 1989 and thereabout. The petitioner admits that he had not made any complaint written or oral to any election authority or to anybody about the alleged Ravi incident and about any speech delivered there by the respondent no. 1 or the respondent no. 2. ( 19 ) THE petitioners witness Revashankar (Ex. 40 is admittedly a very staunch Congress man of long standing in the District of Banaskantha. He admits that he had actively worked for the success of the petitioner at the time of the election in question. Reading the evidence of this witness one cannot escape the impression that he is a highly interested witness in fact he appears to be more interested in the success of the petitioner in this petition than the petitioner himself. He claims to have gone to Ravi on the occasion of Shiv Ratri and he says that the respondent no. 1 was seen by him addressing the public meeting in the hall attached to the Shiv Temple at about 10. 00 A. M. He says that the hall was packed to capacity and the audience was spilling over to the open ground in front of the hall. According to him he had kept standing at a short distance from the meeting hearing distance and had heard the respondent no. 1 speaking to the audience that the Congress is wedded to secularism but the Hindus are facing great hardships and the Congress is giving under encouragement and assistance to alien and Muslims; that the B. J. P. has resolved to construct Ram Temple at Ayodhya if elected; that the B. J. P. will close down the slaughter houses where cows are slaughtered. According to this witness the respondent no. 1 had told the people that he was approaching for their votes as a Hindu. It may be noted here that nowhere in his evidence or in the petition the petitioner has spoken anything about the respondent no. 1 having assured the people to close down slaughter houses. According to this witness the respondent no. 1 had told the people that he was approaching for their votes as a Hindu. It may be noted here that nowhere in his evidence or in the petition the petitioner has spoken anything about the respondent no. 1 having assured the people to close down slaughter houses. There are also other discrepancies between the evidence of the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 as to the speech made by the respondent no. 1. That may be kept out of consideration but it has to be observed that the petitioner Revashankar does not anywhere speak about the presence of the respondent no. 2 though the petitioners version in his evidence is that the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 1 had both addressed the meeting. This witness also does not speak about having seen the petitioner or any other workers of the petitioner at Ravi on 24-2-90. He has denied that no political or election meeting was held by any political pary at Ravi. The most important thing to be noted about the evidence of this witness in his version is that he had reached Ravi on the relevant day (24-2-90) in the evening and he had left Ravi at 2. 00 P. M. on the next day (25-2-90 ). It is seen earlier that according to the petitioner the meeting at Ravi had taken place at 10. 00 A. M. on 24-2-90. If that was so there was no question of this witness Revashankar attending that meeting since his version is that he had reached Ravi in the evening of 24-2-90 and had left at 2. 00 P. M. on 25-2-90. At this stage I am not referring to the other parts of the evidence of this witness where he has tried to lend support to the petitioners case on certain points notably the points as to the distribution of cassettes. The only thing which I would say is that even a bare reading of the evidence of this witness is sufficient to show that he does not deserve any credence. It is very material to note that this witness has not stated anything about the distribution of pamphlets (Exs. 30 and 31) by the respondent no. 1 by the respondent no. 2 or by anybody at Ravi as is the version of the petitioner. It is very material to note that this witness has not stated anything about the distribution of pamphlets (Exs. 30 and 31) by the respondent no. 1 by the respondent no. 2 or by anybody at Ravi as is the version of the petitioner. This witness has also denied that the respondent no. 1 had not at all been to Ravi on the relevant day. ( 20 ) AS against the aforesaid evidence of the petitioner and Revashankar there is the evidence of the respondent no. 1 at Ex. 71 and that of the respondent no. 2 at Ex. 60. They have denied having gone to Ravi on 24-2-90 and respondent no. 1 has stated that in fact on that day they had gone to a certain place in Rajasthan. One may not reject the evidence of the petitioner and Revashankar on the ground of the fact that the respondents nos. 1 and 2 have controverted the said evidence in their testimony. However the fact remains that the evidence of the petitioner and Revashankar on the point has its own contradictions and improbabilities. Furthermore the corroboration tried to be lend by Revashankar to the petitioner on the point cannot be treated as independent corroboration. If any meeting was held at Ravi on Shiv Ratri day there would have been no dearth of independent evidence to support the version of the petitioner. Even some temple authorities could have been examined to state whether any meeting was held at Ravi or not. The petitioner and Revashankar are both seasoned politicians and it is unlikely that they will not complain to the authorities about the corrupt practices openly indulged in by the respondent no. 1 himself and others just three days prior to the date of the election. That story of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 had himself delivered two pamphlets (Exs. 30 and 31) to him borders on absurdity and cannot be accepted. The story is not spoken to even by the highly interested witness Revashankar. This being so even though Mr. H. L. Patel representing the respondent no. 1 fairly conceded that pamphlets (Ex. 30 and 31) contain appeal in the name of Hindu religion and are anti-Muslims that fact cannot avail the petitioner. Revashankar has not spoken about the distribution of pamphlets (exs. 30 and 31) or similar pamphlet at Ravi. This being so even though Mr. H. L. Patel representing the respondent no. 1 fairly conceded that pamphlets (Ex. 30 and 31) contain appeal in the name of Hindu religion and are anti-Muslims that fact cannot avail the petitioner. Revashankar has not spoken about the distribution of pamphlets (exs. 30 and 31) or similar pamphlet at Ravi. I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove the allegations in the petition or in his evidence about the alleged Ravi incident. This finding must cast serious doubt on the credibility of the petitioner and his witness Revashankar. . ( 21 ) WHAT now remains mainly to be considered is whether the petitioner has proved that video and audio cassettes were used on a large scale in the constituency by the respondent no. 1 or his Election Agent or by the workers and supporters of the B. J. P. with the consent of the respondent no. 1 and/or his Election Agent and if so whether those cassettes contained appeal to Hindu voters in the name of Hindu religion to vote for the respondent no. 1 or whether they were such as to promote or had Nos. Satted No. reach to the promotion of feeling of enmity or hatred between Hindus and Muslims. The particulars of video and audio cassettes playing as mentioned in the petition are adverted to by me earlier and may not be repeated here. ( 22 ) BEFORE proceeding further it may be noted that the petitioner has produced two video cassettes at Exs. 32 and 33 and three audio cassettes at Exs. 34 35 and 36. The petitioner initially relied upon all these five cassettes as the cassettes which were played on a large scale in the entire constituency. How ever by purshis (Ex. 77) which was filed after the recording of the evidence was over and at the stage of arguments the petitioner has clearly stated that he does not rely on the audio cassettes (Ex. 34 to 36 This purshis was given on a realisation that the petitioner had not been able to aduce any evidence about the playing of these audio cassettes or similar or identical audio cassettes in the constituency much less by the respondent no. 1 or his election agent or with their consent. 34 to 36 This purshis was given on a realisation that the petitioner had not been able to aduce any evidence about the playing of these audio cassettes or similar or identical audio cassettes in the constituency much less by the respondent no. 1 or his election agent or with their consent. We have therefore to confine ourselves to the allegation of the playing of video cassettes (Exs. 32 and 33) or similar or identical video cassettes. The evidence adduced by the petitioner as to the playing of these or similar video cassettes is extremely unsatisfactory and will be presently examined. Before turning to the said evidence it may be assumed that these video cassettes as such that they contain appeal to the Hindu voters to vote for B. J. P. candidate and that their nature is such as to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindus and Muslims. The averments in the petition are that the video cassettes are of certain functions in connection with Ram Janam Bhumi issue and that the cassette (Ex. 32) is of a Haven held at Palanpur in September 1989 and the cassette (Ex. 33) is of a similar function held at Ahmedabad at about the same time. It is stated that these cassettes though were recorded in 1989 September they were played in February 1990 prior to the election which was contested by the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 and others. In the petition it is stated in particular that these cassettes were played at Dhanera Valer Panthawad Zerda Nainawa. The allegation is that these cassettes were played at Dhanera on 15th February 1990 18 February 1990 and 24th February 1990 in the very presence of the respondent no. 1 and on 17th February 1990 the respondent no. 1 had himself exhibited one of the cassettes at village Valer and his election agent R. D. Rajgor had played the same cassette at village Panthawada on 20th February 1990 and the cassettes were also played at Zerda on 21st February 1990 in the presence of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and at Nainawa on 16 February 1990 in the presence of the respondent no. 2 with the consent of the respondent No. 1. There are allegations about playing of audio cassettes also. 1 and 2 and at Nainawa on 16 February 1990 in the presence of the respondent no. 2 with the consent of the respondent No. 1. There are allegations about playing of audio cassettes also. However as already stated the case in respect of playing of the audio cassettes is given up by purshis (Ex. 77 But it is interesting to note in this connection that in the petition it is mentioned that one of the audio cassettes was played from the main offi ce of the respondent no. 1 at Dhanera continuoulsy from 9th February 1990 to 25th February 1990 it may be noted here that Mr. Patel for the respondent no. 1 frankly conceted that the audio cassettes did contain appeal to Hindu voters to vote for B. J. P. candidates. The evidence on record shows that the election office of the petitioner and that of the respondent no. 1 at Dhanera were not far away from each other and that being so is it well-night impossible to believe that if the respondent No. 1s election office at Dhanera was blaring any such audio cassette and that too continuously from 9th February 1990 to 25th February 1990 from his election office the petitioner and/or his election agent S. B. Thakore who is a practising Advocate would not lodge complaint about such a corrupt practice being indulged in by or under the very nose of the respondent no. 1. This factor must cast a shadow of serious doubt about the entire case of the petitioner and the evidence adduced by him as regards the allegation of the playing of the cassettes video or audio. ( 23 ) BE this as it may we may now turn to the evidence on the said of the petitioner in support of the allegation that cassettes similar to or identical as the cassettes at Exs. 32 and 33 were played on a large scale in the constituency. The petitioner has examined nine witnesses in all including himself and his election agent S. B. Thakore (Ex. 58) Out of that his witnesses Arjanbhai Harjibhai (Ex. 39) who is of village Bhachalve Ranabhai Visabhai (Ex. 41) who is of village Nani; Hardanbhai Bhalaji (Ex. 42) who is of Dhanera itself Maganbhai Madhabhai (Ex. 44) who is of village Baiwada; Kantilal Jerambhai (Ex. 56) who is of village Panchhdal; and Maganbhai Galabhai (Ex. 58) Out of that his witnesses Arjanbhai Harjibhai (Ex. 39) who is of village Bhachalve Ranabhai Visabhai (Ex. 41) who is of village Nani; Hardanbhai Bhalaji (Ex. 42) who is of Dhanera itself Maganbhai Madhabhai (Ex. 44) who is of village Baiwada; Kantilal Jerambhai (Ex. 56) who is of village Panchhdal; and Maganbhai Galabhai (Ex. 57) who is of village Therwada; have not spoken anything about the playing of any video or audio cassettes. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of these witnesses clearly shows that they had actively canvassed for the petitioner and some of them had canvassed for him not only in their respective villages but in several villages of the constituency. And it is these witnesses who have not spoken anything about the playing of any cassettes to their knowledge. ( 24 ) IN para 35 of his evidence the petitioner has stated that the Haven at Palanpur in connection with Ramshila Pujan was performed some two months prior to the election day but in fact it is an indisputed position that it was performed in September 1989 The petitioner says that he had attended that Haven and had seen several Sadhus and Saints sitting on the dias along with leaders of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and that the respondent no. 1 was also present there. It need not be repeated that the election which was contested by the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner and which is in question before us was still far away in September 1989. Proceeding further the petitioner has stated that at the said meeting speaker after speaker had criticised the Congress saying that it was hostile to Hindu religion. The petitioner says that on hearing such speeches he had left the place. But then he has stated that video cassettes of the proceedings of the haven was being recorded and that cassette was played to the voters of all the villages in his constituency. He then refers to one other cassette which was reported to him to have been recorded at a similar function held at Ahmedabad and he has stated that cassette was also shown to the voters in his constituency. He has referred to these cassette i. e. replice of the said cassettes as cassettes at Exs. 32 and 33 produced by him. The petitioner has come out with the story that cassettes exs. He has referred to these cassette i. e. replice of the said cassettes as cassettes at Exs. 32 and 33 produced by him. The petitioner has come out with the story that cassettes exs. 32 and 33 were handed over to him by his witness Revashankar and that he had retained these two cassettes with him till he handed over the same to his Advocate for production in this case. The petitioner has stated that he had seen both these cassettes by playing the same on a V. C. R. That is how he identifies one of the cassettes (Ex. 32) as a cassette of the Palanpur function. In his evidence the petitioner has also charged that the respondent no. 1 was moving in an open jeep-car for is propaganda and on that jeep-car a card-board model of a temple was kept and an audio cassette was playing on a taperecorder kept in that jeep and that he had seen that in Dhanera and other villages of the constituency. He has stated that said audio cassette contained speeches to the effect that the congress was anti-Hindu. He has referred to the audio cassettes (Exs. 34 to 36) as these cassettes on the ground that he had heard all these cassettes on a taperecorder after they were handed over to him by witness Revashankar. It may be repeated that subsequently the case regarding playing of audio cassettes is completely given up by the petitioner by purshis (ex. 77 ). So far as video cassettes are concerned the petitioner has not claimed any personal knowledge about the screening of the said cassettes anywhere in his presence. The petitioner has stated that the five cassettes were given to him by Revashankar but Revashankar had not told him as to from where he had got the said cassettes. It is not possible to believe that the petitioner would not have the necessary curiosity to know from Revashankar as to from where he had procured these cassettes. The suggestion on behalf of the respondent no. 1 is that. since the eruption of the Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Maszid controversy these cassettes were freely available in the market. It is not possible to believe that the petitioner would not have the necessary curiosity to know from Revashankar as to from where he had procured these cassettes. The suggestion on behalf of the respondent no. 1 is that. since the eruption of the Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Maszid controversy these cassettes were freely available in the market. If any offending video or audio cassettes were played in the constituency and that too on a large scale as stated by the petitioner it is impossible to believe that the petitioner and his election agent would not approach the concerned authorities in that connection. However the record shows and there is no dispute about it that at no stage any complaint was made to any authority by the petitioner or his election agent or by anybody on behalf of the petitioner. In his petition the petitioner has even not disclosed the serious allegation made by him in his evidence that he had himself seen the respondent no. 1 moving on a jeep-car with a card-board Ram Mandir model kept on the jeep-car or about his having hearing audio cassettes being playing from the jeep car in which the respondent no. 1 was travelling. The petitioner says that he had given all these details to his Advocate before he got his petition drafted. If that was so no Advocate worth the name would miss to mention such details in the petition. This also casts a serious doubt about the version of the petitioner. ( 25 ) SO far as Revashankar is concerned he has stated that at the meeting which was held on Shiv Ratri night at village Ravi two video cassettes were shown about the functions at Palanpur and Ahmedabad. He has claimed to be present at the meeting. Then he has stated that he had also seen some more cassettes being screened at other places during the election campaign but he has expressed his inability to say whether any of the same were the same or similar to the ones which were seen by him at village Ravi. He says that the cassettes (Exs. 32 and 33) were given to him by some worker of the Congress party and on the very day he had handed over both these cassettes to the petitioner. He has come out with a similar version in respect of audio cassettes (Exs. He says that the cassettes (Exs. 32 and 33) were given to him by some worker of the Congress party and on the very day he had handed over both these cassettes to the petitioner. He has come out with a similar version in respect of audio cassettes (Exs. 34 to 36 ). He has disclaimed any knowledge about the functions held at Palanpur and Ahmedabad of which Exs. 32 and 33 are said to be video cassettes. When he was asked whether the person who gave him the five cassettes was known to him this witness evaded to give a straight answer and after much dilly-dallying he has stated that he did not know whether the person who gave him the five cassettes was known to him or not. His version is that the cassettes were given to him by his workers two or three days after the election and immediately on the cassettes being given to him he had felt that they would be an important piece of evidence showing that corrupt practices were committed in the course of the election. His version is that despite this knowledge on his part he had not bothered to inquire as to what was the name or the address of the person who gave him the cassettes; nor to enquire with him as to from where and from whom that worker had got the cassettes. Revashankar has made a clear admission that he has never seen or heard the cassettes Exs. 32 to 36. That means that he cannot identify Exs. 32 to 36 as the cassettes which according to him were given to him by his worker and which again according to him were delivered by him to the petitioner. It is clear that even taking the evidence of Revashankar at its best he does not claim any personal knowledge about the playing of any cassette except at the time of the alleged shivratri meeting at village Ravi. I have already discussed the evidence relating to the alleged Ravi incident and have pointed out as to why that evidence is totally unacceptable. I have already discussed the evidence relating to the alleged Ravi incident and have pointed out as to why that evidence is totally unacceptable. It is interesting to note that the petitioners version was that five cassettes were given to him by Revashankar about 5 to 7 days after the election day and that at that time nor at any other time had he enquired with Revashankar nor had Revashankar had told him as to from where or from whom he had procured these cassettes. So far as the petitioner is concerned he has stated that he had once seen the two cassettes (Exs. 32 and 33) being screened at Pathawada during the election campaign. This is his evidence despite the fact that in the election petition he has come out with the version that these two cassettes as also the audio cassettes were played on a large scale in a number of villages in the Constituency during he campaign. Even his version regarding the screening of video cassettes at Pathawada does not find corroboration from any other sources. ( 26 ) THE only evidence about the playing of video cassettes is the above evidence furnished by the petitioner and Revashankar and I have not the slightest of hesitation in rejecting their evidence as being totally unworthy of any credence especially when there is no corroboration to their evidence from any reliable source. Since it is my finding that the petitioner has failed to prove that any video or audio cassettes were played during the election campaign and much less that it was done by the respondent no. 1 or his election agent or by anybody with the consent of either or both of them I unhesitatingly record a negative finding on Issues nos. 2 and 3 both. ( 27 ) ON the whole the evidence about the alleged video and audio cassettes about displaying of temple models and about distribution of hand-bills is highly doubtful partisan and tainted and there is no independent corroboration to it. Even the identity of the cassettes is not proved. Even if there was some objectionable cassette playing there is no credible evidence of the consent of the respondent no. 1 or his agent to such cassette-playing. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove the charges which are the subject matter of these two Issues. Even if there was some objectionable cassette playing there is no credible evidence of the consent of the respondent no. 1 or his agent to such cassette-playing. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove the charges which are the subject matter of these two Issues. Issue No. 4 this issue has been framed on the basis of the averments and allegations made by the petitioner in paragraphs 11 to 21 of the petition and the denial thereof by the contesting respondents. Broadly speaking the averments and allegations in the petition are that there was preponderance of the voters population belonging to Anjana Patel caste in 43 villages named in the petition and a virulent campaign was launched in the said villages that Anjana Patels should en block vote for the respondent no. 1 being himself an Anjana Patel. It is also alleged that after the two meetings dated 9-2-90 and 15-2-90 held at Dhaner as already referred to above a sort of a conspiracy was hatched to see that large scale bogus voting in favour of the respondent no. 1 and prevention of committed Congress voters from reaching the polling booths was resorted to in these villages. It is alleged that pursuant to this campaign and conspiracy in 36 villages only of the aforesaid 43 villages the workers of the B. J. P. with the consent of the respondent no. 1 and/or his election agent had actually indulged in booth-capturing and bogus voting for the respondent no. 1. It is stated that even though some of the voters listed in the voters list were not present at their villages on the election day or were dead some other persons had in personated for such persons and had cast votes in favour of the respondent no. 1. It is also stated that at certain places the polling staff members had either connived at such activities or that in consert with them bogus-voting and booth-capturing were resorted to. It is further alleged that the Returning Officer himself being a member of the Patel caste had appointed as many as 105 out of 165 Presiding Officers out of the Anjana Patel community and this situation had facilitated the workers and supporters of the respondent no. 1 in indulging in bogus voting and booth-capturing. It is further alleged that the Returning Officer himself being a member of the Patel caste had appointed as many as 105 out of 165 Presiding Officers out of the Anjana Patel community and this situation had facilitated the workers and supporters of the respondent no. 1 in indulging in bogus voting and booth-capturing. In the petition names of six villages namely Jivana Thervada Thaver Tetoda Jadiya and Dhaka are given as the villages from the polling booths of which the polling Agents of the petitioner were given threats and were roughly treated and at some places they were driven away from the polling booths. In para 16 of the petition it is alleged that p. w. 6 Maganbhai Madhabhai (Ex. 44) who was a Congress worker was told by the petitioners polling agent Magan Narsinh that he and the other polling Agent of the petitioner were not allowed to sit in the polling booth and that Harijan voters who wanted to cast their votes in favour of the petitioner were not permitted to do so. It is further alleged that thereupon P. W. 6 Maganbhai Madhabhai had requested the leaders of the Patel caste of that village who were working for the success of the respondent no. 1 to that their men did not indulge in such activities. The allegation further is that thereupon these Patel leaders were enraged and had assaulted and beaten Maganbhai Madhabhai and had robbed him of his wrist watch and gold chain worth about Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6000/- in all. The petitioners case is that fact Maganbhai Madhabhai had lodged a complaint to this effect on the very same day. Thus apart from the general allegations of undue influence made in respect of 43 villages and somewhat particular allegation in that direction made in respect of 36 and six villages a specific allegation of undue influence is made in respect of village Thervada. Then in para 17 it is alleged that one Raichand Vihaji (D. W. No. 11 70 who was supporting the respondent no. 1 and who was Sarpanch of village Ghana had openly adopted a menacing and threatening attitude and was saying that he would indulge in bogus voting and booth-capturing at Ghana and thereupon the petitioners Election Agent one Advocate Mr. 1 and who was Sarpanch of village Ghana had openly adopted a menacing and threatening attitude and was saying that he would indulge in bogus voting and booth-capturing at Ghana and thereupon the petitioners Election Agent one Advocate Mr. S. B. Thakore had made a complaint against said Raichand Vihaji to the Returning Officer on 26th February 1990 However no action was taken in that connection by the authorities and as a result thereof there was bogus voting and booth-capturing Koth According so-as to result in favour of the respondent no. 1. It is alleged that one Ghemraji Mavaji who was appointed as the petitioners Polling Agent for the polling booth at Ghana was forcibly driven out from the polling Station by the said Sarpanch Raichand and his associates. It is alleged that Koli Rabari and Harijan voters of Ghana were not permitted to vote for the petitioner though they wanted to do so. In para 18 it is alleged that the members of the Patel caste had secured the assistance of one Hemsinh Vaghela (respondent no. 3) of village Ramsan and said Hemsinh Vaghela a head-strong person had created an atmosphere of fear in villages Ramsan. Bhakhadiyal Ghana Jadiyali and Kotada by moving with a gun and threatening the people of the said villages of dire consequences if they voted for anybody other than the respondent no. 1. There was it is alleged total booth-capturing in the aforesaid five villages and no polling agents except that of the respondent no. 1 were permitted to work as polling agents. The case put forward in para 19 is that the petitioners election agent Shri S. B. Thakore had visited village Thaver while the election was in progress on 27th February 1990 and at that time the petitioners two polling agents Mangalbhai Bhikhabhai Harijan and Ganeshbhai Nagabhai Harijan (neither of these persons is examined) and others had informed Shri S. B. Thakore that the members of the Patel caste were threatening the members of the other castes and it was necessary to have Police reinforcement whereupon Shri S. B. Thakore had conveyed the information to the Returning Officer and requested him to take immediate steps in the matter. It is alleged that one B. K. Patel and one M. J. Patel who were appointed as Presiding Officers at village Thaver had declined to record the complaints of the polling agents of the petitioner and bogus voting and booth-capturing had taken place at village Thaver. About village Tetoda it is alleged in para 20 that one Bhagwanbhai Desai and Denabhai Vihabhai Desai (neither is examined) had gone to village Tetoda on the election day and had found that large scale bogus voting was taking place at the said village and some prominent persons of Patel caste were frequently entering the polling booths whereupon the aforesaid two workers of the petitioner had tried to contact the Presiding Officer but they were driven away under threats of dire consequences and therefore they had informed the petitioner and Shri S. B. Thakore about this occurence on 1st March 1990. It is alleged that Bhagwanbhai Desai and Denabhai Vihabhai Desai were told by the petitioners Polling agents. Denabhai Vihabhai and Khulanmbhai Harijan that two persons namely Harsanbhai Satubhai Patel and Valabhai Jawabhai Patel had prevented them from sitting in the polling booths. These two polling agents of the petitioner are stated to have informed the aforesaid two persons that large scale bogus voting had taken place in favour of the respondent no. 1 at village Tetoda. The allegation in para 21 is that P. W. 5 Hardanbhai Bhalaji (Ex. 44) was not permitted to enter the aforesaid villages where Anjana Patels were in a dominent position. The allegation is that all these acts of undue influence were committed with the consent of the rerspondent no. 1 or his Election Agent. ( 28 ) BEFORE proceeding further it may be mentioned that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is stated that the averments made in paras 7 to 21 (which would obviously include paras 11 to 20) were made on the basis of information received by the petitioner while the averments made in para 21 were made on the basis of petitioners own knowledge. It is stated that the averments made in paras 7 to 21 (which would obviously include paras 11 to 20) were made on the basis of information received by the petitioner while the averments made in para 21 were made on the basis of petitioners own knowledge. In this connection it requires to be noted that para 21 itself mentions that it was Hardanbhai Bhalaji who was prevented from entering certain villages ti carry on propaganda in favour of the petitioner and there is nothing in the said paragraph itself to show that the petitioner had any personal knowledge in respect of this allegation since it is not the case of the petitioner that he had on any occasion accompanied Hardanbhai when he said Hardanbhai tried to enter any of the villages mentioned in the petition. In effect therefore it would mean that all the allegations about undue influence i. e. about bogus voting and booth-capturing which are made in the petition are made not on the basis of the personal knowledge of the petitioner but on the basis of the information allegedly received by him. ( 29 ) IT may also be noted at this stage that all the allegations made in paras 11 to 21 giving rise to this particular issue of undue influence are vehemently contested in the replies filed by the contesting respondents. ( 30 ) THE question to be considered now is whether the petitioner has adduced sufficient and satisfactory or credible evidence to substantiate his case that the respondent no. 2 or his Election Agent or the workers of the respondent no. 1 with the consent of the respondent no. 1 or his Election Agent had exercised undue influence on the voters and prevented them from voting in favour of the petitioner or had indulged in bogus-voting. ( 31 ) IT may be mentioned at the very outset that the evidence led by the petitioner on this issue is very scanty tardy and far from worthy of any credence. P. W. 4 Ranabhai Visabhai ( Ex. ( 31 ) IT may be mentioned at the very outset that the evidence led by the petitioner on this issue is very scanty tardy and far from worthy of any credence. P. W. 4 Ranabhai Visabhai ( Ex. 41) who is admittedly a congress worker and who admits of having actively worked for the petitioner at the time of the election in question has stated that once when he tried to enter village Ghana to canvass for the petitioner he was prevented from doing so at the outskirts of the village by the sarpanch of Ghana Raichand Vihaji (D. W. 11-ex. 70) by giving him a threat that he would be killed if he enter Ghana. This witness has stated that at that time Raichand had told him that he wanted all the voters of his village to vote for the respondent no. 1 and that respondent no. 1 had himself asked him to do so. This witness has further stated that once he had tried to enter the village Ramsan and at that time respondent no. 3 Hemsinh had intercepted him and had told him that he should not enter his villages if he wanted to remain alive. It may be noted that the respondent no. 3 is the ex/jagirdar of certain villages including Ramsan and the allegation is that he had asked Ranabhai Visabhai to enter his Jagirdar villages on the peril of being killed. It is alleged by this witness that when Hemsingh thus behaved with him he was armed with a gun. When asked whether Hemsingh had given him such a threat at the request of the respondent no. 1 or on his own the witness has claimed ignorance. Apart from this it is significant to note that this witness does not anywhere state as to when he was prevented by Raichand provident in to enter village Ghana and by Hemsingh provisionally to enter village Ramsan. He does not in any way connect the alleged acts of Raichand and Hemsingh with the respondent no. 1 or his Election Agent. The most important thing to be noted is that this witness nowhere states that he was a witness to any activity of booth-capturing or bogus voting indulged by the workers and supporters of the respondent no. 1. He does not in any way connect the alleged acts of Raichand and Hemsingh with the respondent no. 1 or his Election Agent. The most important thing to be noted is that this witness nowhere states that he was a witness to any activity of booth-capturing or bogus voting indulged by the workers and supporters of the respondent no. 1. The cross-examination of this witness reveals that he is a Congress man of a long standing and he was the President of Deesa Taluka Panchayat since 1987 and is a seasoned politician well-versed about the election campaigns etc. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he did not make any written or oral complaints to Police authority or to any other authority to prevent the activities of Hemsingh or Raichand for to see that the gun licence of Hemsingh was suspended or cancelled. Apart from the fact that this witness has not claimed any personal knowledge about any activity of booth-capturing or bogus voting on the day of the election his evidence even in respect of the allegations made against Hemsingh and Raichand is highly unconvincing and cannot be accepted for total want of corroboration thereto. In this connection it requires to be noted that D. W. 11 Raichand Vihaji (Ex. 70) has completely controverted the evidence of this witness to the effect that he was prevented by Raichand from to enter village Ghana and to solicit support for the petitioner. This Raichand who is the Sarpanch of village Ghana has stated in his evidence that at the time of the election in question the petitioner had approached him with a request to work for his success but he had declined to do so as the petitioner in his capacity as the President of the District Panchayat had caused a notice issued for his (Raichands) suspension as Sarpanch of Ghana. Raichand has stated that he does not belong to any political party and there is nothing to contravert his said version. He has frankly admitted that the respondent no. 1 had also approached him for support and he had assured the respondent no. 1 to render whatever support was possible for him to render. It is not possible to brush aside the evidence of this witness and accept the contrary evidence of petitioners witness Ranabhai Visabhai. He has frankly admitted that the respondent no. 1 had also approached him for support and he had assured the respondent no. 1 to render whatever support was possible for him to render. It is not possible to brush aside the evidence of this witness and accept the contrary evidence of petitioners witness Ranabhai Visabhai. ( 32 ) THE next witness who is examined by the petitioner on this issue is P. W. 6 Maganbhai Madhabhai (Ex. 44 ). He also admits that he is a staunch Congress man of 10 years standing and that he is also a caste-fellow of the petitioner. He has also admitted that he works for the success of the Congress candidates at all Assembly Parliamentary and local authority elections. This witness has stated that on the election day he and one Ramabhai Desai and one Deghabhai Desai had gone to villages Therwavad Zerda Kansari Sahsherpura Jhaval etc. in a jeep-car. According to him they had reached village Thervada at about 3 P. M. and when they reached near the polling station they had seen the petitioners election agents Harijan Maganbhai and one Amichand Shrimali also a Harijan standing outside the polling station with the clothes of both them in a tattered condition and with injuries on their faces. The witness goes further to say that on being questioned by him both the polling agents stated that Patels were not allowing them to remain in the polling stations are marking false votes on the ballot papers of others. The witness claims that he had then gone right upto the door of the polling room and to have seen four persons marking votes on a number of ballot papers and putting the ballot papers in the ballot boxes. He further says that he had told those persons that they were doing some that improper act thereupon one of the said four persons had asked him to mind his own business and then he had gone out and seen some leaders of the Patel caste namely Karamshi Magha Ratna Ranchhod Ganesh Kala and Patel Bhemabhai and had complained to these persons of the ill-treatment given to the congress polling agents and the bogus voting and thereupon the said persons had started beating him and had robbed him of his wrist watch and gold chain. This witness says that in the evening of the election day he had informed the petitioner about this incident and it is brought on record that thereafter he had lodged an F. I. R. at Deesa Police station at a distance of 25 kms. at 9. 30 P. M. on the same day. A Copy of this F. I. R. is brought on the record at Ex. 45. This F. I. R. shows that village Thervada where the incident is alleged to have occurred is only 25 kms. from Deesa Police Station. It may be repeated that according to witness Maganbhai Madhabhai he had a jeep-car with him at the relevant time when he was not only beaten but also robbed of valuables like a watch and gold chain. This man is also a seasoned Politician. His evidence and the averments in the petition show that he is a prominent congress leader of the region. It is also clear from his evidence that he had worked very actively for the petitioner at the time of the election in question. His evidence further is that he had actually gone out of pocket to work for the success of the petitioner at the time of the election. It is highly improbable to believe that such a man would not approach the Police till 9. 30 P. M. though he was beaten and robbed at 3. 00 P. M. particularly when he had a jeep-car at his disposal and he had to traverse a distance of only 25 kms. to reach the Police Station. It is also very material to note that now here in his F. I. R. (Ex-45) he has mentioned the version that the two polling agents of the petitioner had first complained to him of beating by anybody or that he had seen injuries on their faces or that he had found their cloths in a tom condition. He does say in a general way that as Patels were in a large block and as they wanted voting to take place as desired by them they were not allowing the Congress polling agents to sit in the polling station. He does not however state anywhere in his F. I. R. that he had seen bogus voting being done by anybody. He does not however state anywhere in his F. I. R. that he had seen bogus voting being done by anybody. This is contrary to his present version that he had seen with his own eyes that four persons were actually indulging in bogus voting of a substantial scale at Thervada. In the F. I. R. he has named Karamshi Magha Ratna Ranchhod one Bai Duli and one Kala Ganesh as the persons who had assaulted and robbed him. Out of these persons the respondent no. 1 had examined Karamshibhai at Ex. 65 and Karamshibhai has on the contrary stated that on the day of the election some Rabari leaders (caste-fellows of the petitioner) has tried to behave in a highlanded manner at village Therwada. He has further stated that the congress polling agents had through remained sitting in the polling booths. He has denied that anybody had beaten or threatened or driven them away. He has also denied the allegations made by Maganbhai Madhabhai against him and others. He does say that Maganbhai Madhabhai had lodged a complaint against him with the Police but his version is that the Police had decided not to file any chargesheet on the basis of the said complaint. When asked whether any chargesheet was filed by the Police on the basis of his complaint at Ex. 45 Maganbhai Madhabhai has taken shelter behind the plea of ignorance on the point. There is therefore no reason to disbelieve Karamshibhai when he says that the Police has not taken any action against him and others on the basis of the F. I. R. at Ex. 45. ( 33 ) P. W. 8 Maganbhai Galabhai (Ex. 57) who was one of the polling agents of the petitioner at village Thervada has stated that while he was in the polling booth at Thervada he had marked that one Kala Ganesh of Thervada and some 4 to 5 other persons were frequently entering the polling booth and casting bogus votes and thereupon he had drawn the attention of the Presiding Officer in that behalf but the Presiding Officer had subbed him by asking him to keep quiet. He says that the Presiding Officer had actually allowed the said persons to continue bogus voting. This man claims that the polling agent of the respondent no. He says that the Presiding Officer had actually allowed the said persons to continue bogus voting. This man claims that the polling agent of the respondent no. 1 One Kalabhai Umeshbhai Patel (not the same man who according to him had indulged in bogus voting) had beaten him and torn his clothes and driven him away. This witness has further stated that Karamshi Madhbhai and Ratna Ranchhod had also given him a threat and had instigated other workers to eat of his hons. and the nose of his co-polling agent. After initial hesitation this stress leader annexed that he had canvassed for the petitioner at the time of the election. He is also made to admit that he is a congress worker. The important thing to be noted about the evidence of this witness is his admission that most of the voters of the 17 congress supporting families of his village had cast their votes freely by 11. 00 A. M. on the election day and whatever incident is alleged by him had taken place after all the congress voters had cast their votes earlier. In his cross-examination this witness has said that he had written down a complaint about bogus voting and offered it to the Presiding Officer but the Presiding Officer had not accepted it. It is not necessary to dwell at any length to point out that the evidence of this witness who is said to have narrated his plight to his leader Maganbhai Madhabhai is at variance with the evidence of Maganbhai Madhabhai in material respects. Another thing to be noted about the evidence of this witness is that he has admitted that there was Police bandobust and there were also home guards and Gram-Rakashak Dal on duty but he admits that he had not given any written complaint about will heating inflicted on him and on his companion polling agent. This witness has stated that in the copy or the voters list with him he had encircled the numbers of about 15 to 20 voters in whose names supporters of the respondent no. 1 had cast bogus votes and that he had shown these encircled numbers in his voters list copy to Maganbhai Madhabhai. Maganbhai Madhabhai has not spoken about being shown the names of persons who were impresonated and for very obvious reasons. 1 had cast bogus votes and that he had shown these encircled numbers in his voters list copy to Maganbhai Madhabhai. Maganbhai Madhabhai has not spoken about being shown the names of persons who were impresonated and for very obvious reasons. This witness has even gone to the length of saying that Mananbhai Madhabhai had actually jotted down the names of the impersonaters which were given by him to Maganbhai and Mananbhai had passed on the paper on which he had jotted down the names of these persons to the petitioner. Neither Maganbhai Madhabhai nor the petitioner supports this version let alone the fact that no such paper is brought forth. Maganbhai does not speak about the nose-cutting thereat allegedly given to this witness Maganbhai Galabhai and his companion polling agent. No complaint was lodged by this witness or his companion Amichand D. W. 3 Kalabhai Ganeshbhai has in his evidence at Ex. 62 denied all the allegations made by Maganbhai Madhabhai and Maganbhai Galabhai. Not a single person is brought before the court to say that on the day of the election he was not present at his village or that he had gone to the polling booth or that he was prevented from going to the polling booth. No person in whose name bogus vote might have been cast by somebody else is brought forward to say that he had not cast vote. When all these factors namely the improbabilities inherent in the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses such as nonfilling of any complaint of bogus voting etc. with any authority; the commission of crime under the very nose of the Police and election authorities and the total absence of any corroboration from any independent source to the evidence of the said witnesses are born in mind it becomes impossible to hold the charge undue influence proved. In any event there is total lack of acceptable and legal evidence to show that even if there was any bogus voting or booth-capturing it was with the consent of the respondent no. 1 or his Election Agent. Needless to say that nobody has alleged that the respondent No. 1 or his Election Agent himself had indulged in bogus voting or booth-capturing. ( 34 ) P. W. 7 Kantilal Jerambhai (Ex. 1 or his Election Agent. Needless to say that nobody has alleged that the respondent No. 1 or his Election Agent himself had indulged in bogus voting or booth-capturing. ( 34 ) P. W. 7 Kantilal Jerambhai (Ex. 56) has stated that on the day previous to the day of election he had gone to village Ghana and he also alleges that the sarpanch of the said village Raichand Vihaji (Ex. 70) had abused him and told him not to try to persuade people to vote for congress saying that he had already captured the votes. According to this witness Raichand had also abused him. This evidence of the witness is controverted by Raichand himself in his sworn testimony at Ex. 70 and there is no reason to prefer the evidence of Kantilal Jerambhai to that of Raichand because there is nothing even in the subsequent conduct of Kantilal to support his version. He does not say that he had lodged any complaint against Raichand for the threats administered to him or the abuses given to him. There is also no witness examined to support the version of Kantilal. Kantilal has also stated that on the election day he and some two or two to four companions of his had gone to village Jadiyali and had seen four or five persons indulging in bogus voting in favour of the respondent no. 1 and he had complained about it to the Zonal Officer and the Zonal Officer had told him that he had given necessary instructions in the matter to the election staff members on duty but even thereafter the said four or five persons had continued to indulge in bogus voting. This witness Kantilal is also a congress man of long standing as admitted by him and according to his own version he actively works for the success of the congress candidate at all elections. He has also admitted that he had spent Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800 from his own pocket to work for the petitioner. He admits that he had not given any written complaint to the petitioner or anybody about the Jadiyali incident. The evidence of this witness is also not satisfactory enough to inspire such confidence as to make it safe to act on it without any corroboration. Undoubtedly he is a partisan witness. He admits that he had not given any written complaint to the petitioner or anybody about the Jadiyali incident. The evidence of this witness is also not satisfactory enough to inspire such confidence as to make it safe to act on it without any corroboration. Undoubtedly he is a partisan witness. ( 35 ) IN the course of the evidence of the Returning Officer P. W. 6 Pitamberbhai Purshottam Patel (Ex. 47) a report (Ex. 49) made by the Zonal Officer for village Jadiyali and other villages is produced but that report only shows that at the time of the Zonal Officers visit to Jadiyali one head-strong person had entered the polling booth and had caused interruption in the polling work. The Zonal Officer had requested the Returning Officer to arrange for further Police Bandobust at Jadiyali. The evidence of the Returning Officer shows that on receiving his report he had contacted Dhanera P. S. I. to reinforce Police bandobust at Jadiyali. What is to be noted is that this report of the Zonal Officer is far from supporting the version of the petitioners witness Kantilal Jerambhai. It does not speak about any bogus voting being brought to the notice of the Zonal Officer. The evidence of the Returning Officer completely demolishes the allegation that the Government Officers including the Collector had entered into any arrangement or conspiracy with the respondent no. 1 or anybody to appoint Patels as Presiding Officers for several polling sations of the constituency. It is not shown that the Returning Officers is a member of Anjana Patel caste. The Returning Officer has also produced at Ex. 52 a letter received by him from the petitioners Election Agent Shri S. B. Thakore of 26 expressing an apprehension about possible malpractices being employed at village Ghana on the election day. The Returning Officer has stated that in this connection also he had alerted Dhanera Police station. This letter dated 26-2-90 does not mean anything more than that Shri S. B. Thakore had apprehensions about malpractices being indulged in-at Ghana at the time of the election. It is true that the Returning Officer has stated that on the election day he had received a message one phone that the clothes of the congress polling agent at Therevada were torn and in that connection also he had informed the Police. It is true that the Returning Officer has stated that on the election day he had received a message one phone that the clothes of the congress polling agent at Therevada were torn and in that connection also he had informed the Police. Similarly the Returning Officer has stated that on 27-2-90 he had received a phone message purporting to be from Dhanera congress office to the effect that Harijans and Bhils were prevented from voting at village Therevada. The Returning Officer however has not claimed any personal knowledge about any bogus voting or booth-capturing. He has stated that he himself is not Anjana Patel. It is also clear from his evidence that no serious and specific complaint of bogus voting or booth-capturing was received by him from any quarters on the election day. ( 36 ) THEREFORE the only evidence about the alleged bogus voting or booth-capturing is the evidence furnished by the aforesaid witnesses examined by the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 has also adduced negative evidence on the issue by examining several witnesses but even without turning to the evidence of those witnesses I have no hesitation in concluding that the evidence of the petitioners witnesses is farthest from satisfactory to base a finding thereon that the charge of under influence is proved. The evidence of the petitioner (Ex. 29) his witness Revashankar (Ex. 40) and his election agent S. B. Thakore (ex. 58) on the question of bogus voting and/or booth-capturing is more or less hearsay evidence and even as it is it is of a highly doubtful nature in as much as they do not claim to have lodged any complaint of bogus voting and/or booth-capturing with the polling staff on the day of the election. It is highly unbelievable that all these three persons who are seasoned politicians would not make such complaints if they came across any cases of bogus voting or booth-capturing. Since the petitioner and these two witnesess have not inspired me as witneses deserving implicit reliance I do not even accept the corroboration accorded by them to the aforesaid other as witnesses as sufficient to remove the infirmities in the evidence of the two other witnesses. It is obvious that such a serious charge as that of undue influence has to be proved by independent evidence of such a nature as to inspire confidence about its veracity. It is obvious that such a serious charge as that of undue influence has to be proved by independent evidence of such a nature as to inspire confidence about its veracity. I do not find any such evidence adduced by the petitioner and/or his witnesses and therefore I find that the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge the burden on him to prove this issue. ( 37 ) IN the result of the above discussion I find that the petition is liable to dismissed. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the respondent no. 1 which are quantified at R. 2600/ -. The respondent no. 1 may withdraw the amount of R. 2600/ -. deposited by the petitioner as security in satisfaction of the costs awarded to him. So far as the rest of the respondents are concerned there will be no order as to costs. Letters Dismissed. .