JUDGMENT A.L Vaidya, J.—Sbri Bhikam Ram petitioner and Shri Reta Ram respondent No 3 contested election of Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Shakra alongwitb one Shri Ramesh Chand respondent No. 4, This election was held on 31-12-1991 and in that election, Shri Reta Ram was elected as President, Gram Panchayat, Shakra 2. Shri Bhikam Ram preferred an election petition on 24-1-1992, assailing the election of the President on various grounds ; the main being, that this Reta Ram indulged in corrupt practices and got cast some votes of those persons who were either out of station or actually did not cast their votes and since there were shortage of copies of electoral roll,- the agent of the petitioner could not challenge the identity of the persons who infact cast the proxy votes It was further pleaded that this respondent Reta Ram was very much instrumental in getting proxy votes of the persons referred in the petition, which votes have been cast in his favour. According to Shri Bhikam Ram, had these votes not been cast, the petitioner could easily win the election of the Pradhan of Gram sabha, Shakra. It was prayed that election for the office of Pradhan, Gram Sabha Shakra may kindly be set aside and respondent No. 1, who had indulged in corrupt practices, may also be awarded punishment as was provided under the rules. 3. This petition was contested by Shri Reta Ram and in the reply submitted by him, he denied all the allegations made in the petition. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil), before whom the election petition was filed, framed two issues on the basis of the pleas tendered by the parties, which were as under: 1. Whether the forged votes were cast for the post of President, Gram Panchayat, Shakra ? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent Shri Reta Ram has indulged in corrupt practice which affected the election process ? OPP. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil), under issue No. 1, decided that it was alleged that it forged votes were cast out of which three in Ward No. 3, two in Ward No. 5 and two in Ward No, 4 and hence seven total votes were proved to be cast forged. Issue No. 2 was decided in the negative. 4. OPP. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil), under issue No. 1, decided that it was alleged that it forged votes were cast out of which three in Ward No. 3, two in Ward No. 5 and two in Ward No, 4 and hence seven total votes were proved to be cast forged. Issue No. 2 was decided in the negative. 4. S. D. M. (Civil) came to the conclusion that it was correct to asser that in direct way, it could not be proved that the proxy votes were got cast by the respondents, but in the election process, such seven votes were cast by such persons who were impersonated which is in violation of section 180 (1) (d) (ii) of the H P Panchayat Raj Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")* The learned Officer, in view of the findings, accepted the Election Petition and set aside the election of President of Gram Panchayat, Shakra, which took place on 31-12 1991. 5. Shri Reta Ram assailed the aforesaid order before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, by preferring an appeal. The learned Deputy Commissioner, during the course of pendency of the appeal, sought the report of Additional District Magistrate who was directed that he should peruse the record and thereafter report as to the status of the seven allegedly forged votes that have been cast. 6 The Additional District Magistrate, on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, submitted the report. It was reported by him that he had inspected the entire record of the election which included the voters list used at the time of election, ballot paper counter foil and the ballot papers Additional District Magistrate also observed that on the inspection of the aforesaid record, it was found that six persons put of seven, as observed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Karsog, had cast their votes and the 7th person who was named as Shri Bodh Raj s/o Shri Indria had neither himself cast the vote nor in his behalf anybody else had cast the vote It was also reported that the six persons on whose behalf the vote had been cast, out of them four persons, namely, S/Sh. Dharam Parkash, Kamal Kumar, Smt Hasna and Smt. Kasnu had cast their votes in favour of Sh. Bhikam Ram and remaining two i.e Smt. Mayari and Smt Mathiu had cast their votes in favour of Shri Reta Ram. Dharam Parkash, Kamal Kumar, Smt Hasna and Smt. Kasnu had cast their votes in favour of Sh. Bhikam Ram and remaining two i.e Smt. Mayari and Smt Mathiu had cast their votes in favour of Shri Reta Ram. 7. The learned Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that on the basis of the aforesaid report, the result of the election for the post of President of Shri Reta Ram was not affected and, therefore, the appeal was accepted and the order dated 29-6-1993 passed by the S D. M. (Civil), Karsog, was set aside, 8. The aforesaid order has been assailed in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the prayer that the order dated 16 11-1993 (Annexure P 2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, be set 4bide and quashed and the election of respondent No. 3 to the office of President, Gram Panchayat, Shakra be held as null and void. The said order has been attacked on various grounds. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 10. It has been very forcefully contended on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly, six votes were found to be forged one and these votes had been cast by impersonation and this resulted in corrupt practice during the course of election and on that score, the entire election process be set aside, especially the election of respondent No, 3 as Pradhan. It has further been submitted that the order of Deputy Commissioner, on the aforesaid ground, deserves to be quashed. It is not so simple a matter, as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner. 11. Shri Reta Ram was declared elected as President, as he had secured 7 more votes than the present petitioner, Election petition has been filed on the ground of corrupt practice. Whether the casting of forged votes would amount to corrupt practice, can be answered while going through the appropriate provisions of the Act It may be referred here that there is practically no evidence to connect the petitioner or respondent No. 3 to be responsible for the casting of such six forged votes. 12. Election could be set aside on the grounds mentioned in section 180 of the Act. This section runs as under: "180. 12. Election could be set aside on the grounds mentioned in section 180 of the Act. This section runs as under: "180. Grounds for setting aside Elections.—(I) If the prescribed authority is of the opinion— (a) that on the date of his election the elected person was not qualified/ or was disqualified to be elected under this Act ; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by the elected person or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the elected person or his agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the elected person, has been materially affected— (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination ; or (ii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void ; or (iii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules made under this Act; the prescribed authority shall set aside the election of the elected person. (2) When an election has been set aside under sub-section (1), a fresh election shall be held." 13. What would be corrupt practice, has been so described under section 185 of the Act, which runs as under: "185. (2) When an election has been set aside under sub-section (1), a fresh election shall be held." 13. What would be corrupt practice, has been so described under section 185 of the Act, which runs as under: "185. Corrupt practices.—The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this chapter:— (1) Bribery, that is to say, (A) any gift, offer or promise by candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate with his agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly or inducing— (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being a candidate at an election ; or (b) a member of the Sabha to vote or refrain from voting at an election; or as a reward to— (i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for , having withdrawn his candidature ; or (ii) a member of the Sabha for having voted or refrained from voting ; (B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive any gratification, whether as a motive or a reward— (a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing from being, a candidate ; or (b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any member of the State to vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw his candidature." 14. As per the facts of the present case which, during the present proceedings, are not being disputed, the casting of six forged votes by personification, will not constitute corrupt practice as referred under section 185 of the Act, referred to above. Section 180 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act can be referred to at this stage, wherein it has been provided that the election could be set aside in case the result of the election in so far as it concerns the elected person has been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void. In the present case, at the maximum, it can be said that those six votes found to be forged one, having been cast by personification, can be termed as void votes In case these void votes are excluded from the number of votes cast in favour of the petitioner and respondent No, 3, the result of the election would not be materially affected Admittedly, respondent No. 3 won by seven votes and in. case, two alleged forged votes cast in his favour are excluded, he would be winning by five votes, so far as the present petitioner is concerned. In case four forged votes alleged to have been cast in favour of the petitioner are excluded from the total number of votes cast in his favour, the margin of winning in favour of respondent No. 3 Reta Ram, would be even more. 15. It may be referred here that all the relevant records had been called for which were inspected by this Court and that supports the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner which has been assailed in the present petition. 16 Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners plea for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16-11-1993 cannot be favourably considered, especially when the order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and has been passed after hearing the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Act, This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.