S. K. DUBEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 26 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 16-3-1996, passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 7 of 1995 by the District Judge, Sagar. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this revision are thus: In the year 1994, for composition of the Municipal Council, Garhakota, elections of different wards were held on 27-11-1994. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 and other two candidates contested the election from Ward No. 1 known as Jawahar Ward. The petitioner was a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party while respondent No. 1 was of Congress (I ). The result of the election was declared on 29-11-1994, wherein the petitioner was declared elected as he secured 363 votes while respondent No. 1 secured 295 votes and other two independent candidates secured one vote each. The respondent No. 1 challenged the election of the returned candidate by an election petition under Section 20 of the Act for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void on the ground of committal of corrupt practices as defined under Section 28 (i) (ii) (iii) and (vii) of the Act. After notice, the petitioner denied the allegations. Respondent No. 3 also filed his written statement while respondent No. 2 did not file written statement. The trial Court raised 9 issues. After recording of evidence, the trial Court found established the corrupt practice of issuing of pamphlet (Ex. P-2) having reference to the election or selection which did not bear the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof, therefore, declared the election of the petitioner void from Ward No. 1 of Municipal Council, Garhakota. ( 3 ) SHRI L. S. Baghel, learned senior counsel contended that as mandatorily required by sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act, an election petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and to set forth with sufficient particulars the ground or grounds on which the election of nomination is called in question. It is not the case of the election petitioner that the returned candidate issued Ex. P-2 which had a reference to the election does not bear the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof. There is no allegation that the Ex. It is not the case of the election petitioner that the returned candidate issued Ex. P-2 which had a reference to the election does not bear the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof. There is no allegation that the Ex. P-2 allegedly published by Pandit Gopal Bhargava, a sitting M. L. A. was with the consent of the returned candidate. Nor there is any allegation that with the consent of the returned candidate Ex. P-2 was circulated and distributed amongst the voters of Ward No. 1. There are also no particulars of date, time and place and also of the persons to whom it was circulated or distributed. There are no particulars in the pleadings of the circulation of the pamphlets (Ex. P-2) by the returned candidate, accompanying with Pandit Gopal Bhargava. Even in absence of the pleadings, there is no cogent legal evidence that Ex. P-2 was issued and circulated with the consent of the returned candidate. The trial Court only on surmises and for non-examination of Pandit Gopal Bhargava has raised an inference that Ex. P-2 was circulated with the connivance of the returned candidate. In an election petition, burden lies on the election petitioner to prove the charge of corrupt practice fully and to the satisfaction of the Court. The trial Court, in the absence of pleadings looked into the evidence which also does not make out a case of corrupt practice. The trial Court on conjecture by drawing inference and by adopting and involving process of reasoning, has held that Ex. P-2 was published by Gopal Bhargava, a sitting M. L. A. of Bhartiya Janta Party, which contain the names of all the candidates of different parties who contested the election as candidates of Bhartiya Janta Party. If any leader issues any pamphlets, that cannot be said to be by the consent of the returned candidate unless the consent is established by direct or other evidence so as to arrive at irresistible conclusion of consent. If any leader issues any pamphlets, that cannot be said to be by the consent of the returned candidate unless the consent is established by direct or other evidence so as to arrive at irresistible conclusion of consent. Counsel cited the decisions in Samanta N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201 ; Charanlal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, AIR 1984 SC 309 ; Brij Mohan v. Sat Pal, AIR 1985 SC 847 ; Dhartipakar v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577 ; K. V. Narayan Rao v. P. Purushottam Rao, AIR 1993 SC 1698 ; Manohar Joshi v. N. B. Patil, AIR 1996 SC 796 ; Smt. Sarla Devi v. Birendra Singh, AIR 1961 MP 127 and Alok v. Shri Motilal Vora, 1990 JLJ 644 . ( 4 ) SHRI Masood Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that returned candidate in his written statement has not denied the allegations of the corrupt practice specifically nor has examined Pandit Gopal Bhargava so as to disprove the allegation that the Ex. P-2 was issued at the instance or by consent or by connivance of the returned candidate. The trial Court, therefore, rightly after appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding that the Ex. P-2 was issued by Pandit Gopal Bhargava with the consent of the returned candidate. Inferences raised by the trial Court are based on the evidence adduced by the parties, therefore, this Court in revision will not interfere with the finding of fact so recorded. Even in an appeal when the decision on an issue turns on appreciation of oral evidence, the appellate Court will not interfere unless the finding is perverse or some special feature escaped the notice of the trial Court. It is submitted that no direct evidence of consent can be adduced. When a corrupt practice is committed by an agent, direct evidence of the candidate's consent may not be available. However, complicity of the candidate may be inferred from circumstantial evidence also, provided the circumstances pointing clearly the consent of the candidate. Counsel cited the decisions in Madhusudan Das v. Narayani Bai, AIR 1983 SC 114 ; Charanlal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh supra and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kamal Narayan v. D. P. Mishra, 1970 0 MPLJ 826. Counsel cited the decisions in Madhusudan Das v. Narayani Bai, AIR 1983 SC 114 ; Charanlal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh supra and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kamal Narayan v. D. P. Mishra, 1970 0 MPLJ 826. ( 5 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 6 ) AN election petition to call in question election or nomination of the returned candidate is filed under Section 20 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 20 lays down that an election petition shall (a) contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) set forth with sufficient particulars, the ground or grounds on which the election or nomination called in question; (c) be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the veri-fication of pleadings. The pleadings of an election petition are regulated by sub-section (5) of Section 20 which is in pari materia to Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (for short 'r. P. Act' ). When the election of a returned candidate is called into question on the ground of corrupt practice, the election petition should be in conformity with Section 20 (5); that is, it should contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and also should set forth that sufficient particulars, the ground or grounds on which the election or nomination is called in question. It is obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts, the details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. If election petitioner fails to make out a ground for declaring the election or nomination to be void under Section 22 of the Act, it must be dismissed at the threshhold. See Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi (supra ). ( 7 ) ALLEGATIONS of corrupt practice are in the nature of criminal charges. It is necessary that there should be no vagueness in the allegations so as to that effect the returned candidate may know the case which he has to meet out. If the allegations are vague and general and the particulars are not pleaded, the election petition cannot be proceeded for want of cause of action. See Dharti Pakar Madanlal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi supra and Manohar Lal Joshi v. N. B. Patil, AIR 1996 SC 796 . If the allegations are vague and general and the particulars are not pleaded, the election petition cannot be proceeded for want of cause of action. See Dharti Pakar Madanlal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi supra and Manohar Lal Joshi v. N. B. Patil, AIR 1996 SC 796 . ( 8 ) IN the present case, the ground of corrupt practice is as defined in Section 28 (vii) of the Act, which reads thus :"the issuing of any circular, placard or poster having a reference to the election or selection which does not bear the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof. "allegations of that ground are made in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the election petition. From a bare reading of paragraphs 7 to 10, it is evident that there is no allegation that it was the returned candidate who issued Ex. P-2. On the other hand allegation is that Ex. P-2 was issued and circulated by Pandit Gopal Bhargava. Of this, no particulars of date, time and place of the issuing or distributing Ex. P-2 by the returned candidate and also the name of persons to whom it was distributed have been given. There is no allegation that Ex. P-2 was issued with the consent express or implied of the returned candidate. There are no allegations that the returned candidate distributed or issued Ex. P-2 on the particular date, time and place and to whom. The allegations are completely vague in their material particulars of the corrupt practice. ( 9 ) IN spite of the vague and general allegations, the Court framed issues. The election petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1, Sanjay Kumar Koshi (P. W. 2), Shikherchand Jain (P. W. 3); Roopchand (P. W. 4) and Mohd. Sabir (P. W. 5 ). From their statement it is not established that it was the returned candidate who issued or got issued Ex. P-2 for its circulation and distribution amongst the voters of Ward No. 1. The witnesses have given a vague statement that Ex. P-2 was distributed on behalf of the returned candidate. Returned candidate examined himself as N. A. W. 1, who specifically denied the issuance of Ex. P-2 and also that he ever distributed or circulated the Ex. P-2 at any time at any place to any person either himself or along with Gopal Bhargava. P-2 was distributed on behalf of the returned candidate. Returned candidate examined himself as N. A. W. 1, who specifically denied the issuance of Ex. P-2 and also that he ever distributed or circulated the Ex. P-2 at any time at any place to any person either himself or along with Gopal Bhargava. However, in paragraph 10, he admitted that Gopal Bhargava is sitting M. L. A. of Bhartiya Janta Party from Rehli Garhakota Constituency. The trial Court for non-examination of Gopal Bhargava raised adverse inference against the returned candidate and observed that Ex. P-2 was issued, circulated and distributed with the connivance of the returned candidate. ( 10 ) CLAUSE (vii) of Section 28 speaks of issuance of any circulars placard or poster by the returned candidate. It does not cover the issuance of any circular, placard by another with the consent of the returned candidate. In any case the consent of the candidate has to be established, as any act of the leader of a party or candidate in the ground, implied consent of the candidate cannot be read into for any act done by a leader of the political party to which the candidate belongs so as to establish the corrupt practice. See Manohar Lal Joshi v. N. B. Patil (supra ). ( 11 ) THE law is well settled that the election of the returned candidate could not be set aside on flimsy vague and uncertain evidence; more so in the context of the vagueness of the allegation made in the election petition. The evidence, if not cogent, nor does it particularise the persons, time and place and is of too general nature can be of no merit. No evidence without pleading with specific particulars can be accepted. The allegation of corrupt practice must be so clear and specific that inference of corrupt practice will irresistibly admit of no doubt or qualm. It cannot be left to time, chance or conjecture for the Court to draw an inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning. See K. V. Narayan Rao v. P. Purushottam Rao, AIR 1993 SC 1698 ; Samanta N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez (supra); Daulatram Chauhan v. Anand Sharma, AIR 1984 SC 621 . ( 12 ) THE trial Court because of the non-examination of Gopal Bhargava, has held that the Ex. P-2 was published with the connivance of the returned candidate. See K. V. Narayan Rao v. P. Purushottam Rao, AIR 1993 SC 1698 ; Samanta N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez (supra); Daulatram Chauhan v. Anand Sharma, AIR 1984 SC 621 . ( 12 ) THE trial Court because of the non-examination of Gopal Bhargava, has held that the Ex. P-2 was published with the connivance of the returned candidate. The consent and connivance cannot be read together. Even assuming it is, it is not open to election petitioner to plead in terms of synonymous. There ought to have been precise, specific and unambiguous pleading so as to put the returned candidate on notice. In case of Charanlal Sahu (supra), the Supreme Court while considering the charge of undue influence in paragraph 30, considered whether 'consent' and 'connivance' are one and the same thing. After referring to dictionaries and texts, observed that 'connivance' may in certain situations amount to consent, which explains why the dictionaries give consent as one of the meanings of the word 'connivance'. But it is not true to say that 'connivance' invariably and necessarily means or amounts to 'consent', that is to say of the given situation. The two cannot, therefore, be equated. Consent implies that parties are ad idem. Connivance does not necessarily imply that parties are of one mind. They may or may not be, depending upon the facts of the situation. That is why in the absence of a pleading that the offence of undue influence was committed with the consent of the returned candidate, one of the main ingredients of Section 18 (1) (a) of R. P. Act remains unsatisfied. ( 13 ) IN the present case, as stated, there is no pleading, nor in the absence of pleading, charge that Ex. P-2 was issued by Gopal Bhargava is established. The trial Court, because of non-examination of Gopal Bhargava drew an adverse inference against the returned candidate by adopting an involved process of reasoning, which is not permitted. ( 14 ) THE contention of the election petitioner that there is no specific denial of the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 to 10 by the returned candidate, therefore, under Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the allegations will be deemed to be admitted, cannot be accepted. The returned candidate has denied the allegations. The trial Court has raised issues. The returned candidate has denied the allegations. The trial Court has raised issues. Therefore, even if there is no specific denial, the Court has required proof on the point which is subject of the proof which has not been discharged by legal evidence. See Smt. Sarla Devi v. Birendra Singh (supra ). ( 15 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. Security amount of Rs. 250/- deposited by the petitioner be refunded. Revision allowed. .