Judgment D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---This Election Petition has been filed under section 100 read with sections 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenging the election of the respondent No. 1 as a Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Maharashtra Legislative Constituency No. 75, Chandwad Assembly, District: Nasik. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the election of the respondent No. 1 is null and void on the ground that the respondent No. 1 having committed corrupt practices defined under section 123(3A) and under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner also seeks an order from this Court directing that the respondent No. 1 be disqualified from contesting election for a period of 6 years. The petitioner claims in his petition that he is citizen of India and resident of Chandwad Taluka, which is in the Nasik district of the State of Maharashtra and that he is an elector of Assembly Constituency No. 75 and that his name has been duly entered in the list of voters of the said constituency. He further claims that during the past 15 years he contested the election from the same constituency and was declared elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from that constituency. He claims that he was elected on 6-3-1985 for a term of 5 years, then he was again elected in the year 1990 for a term of 5 years. He was again elected on 13-3-1995 for a term of 5 years. However, the Assembly was dissolved and fresh elections were ordered. It is claimed that notification for the election was published on 17-8-1999. As per the election programme, the nominations were to be filed from 27-8-1999 to 24-8-1999. The nominations were to be scrutinised on 25-8-1999 and the list of validly nominated candidates was to be published on the same day. The date of withdrawal of the candidature was 27-8-1999. The list of contesting candidate was to be published on 27-8-1999. The date of polling was 11-9-1999 and the date of counting was 6-10-1999. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Bhartiya Janta Party. He claims that he submitted his nomination form on 24-8-1999 as a nominee of the Bhartiya Janta Party. The list of contesting candidate was to be published on 27-8-1999. The date of polling was 11-9-1999 and the date of counting was 6-10-1999. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Bhartiya Janta Party. He claims that he submitted his nomination form on 24-8-1999 as a nominee of the Bhartiya Janta Party. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 Shri Shirish Vasantrao Kotwal, the respondent No. 2 Shri Sitaram Karbhari Thombre, the respondent No. 3 Shri Madhukar Shankarrao Sonawane, the respondent No. 4 Shri Deepak Mahadeo Bhaskar also filed their nominations. Their nominations including that of the petitioner was found to be valid on the date of scrutiny. When after the date of withdrawal the list of contesting candidates was declared, the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were declared as contesting candidates. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 contested the election as a nominee of the 'Nationalist Congress Party', the respondent No. 2 contested the election as the nominee of 'Communist Party (Marxist)', the respondent No. 3 contested the election as the nominee of the 'Indian National Congress (I)', and the respondent No. 4 was an Independent candidate. It is claimed that the result of the election was declared after the counting of votes, on 7-10-1999, the respondent No. 1 was declared elected as a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Chandwad Constituency. According to the petitioner, at that election the petitioner secured 39,469 votes, whereas the respondent No. 1 secured 61,333 votes. Thus, the respondent No. 1 having secured highest number of votes from the constituency was declared elected. The petitioner claims that the election of the respondent No. 1 as the member of the Assembly is void, because he is guilty of many corrupt practices mentioned in section 123 of the Act. It is claimed that the respondent No. 1 and his agent and other persons with the consent of the respondent No. 1 appealed to the voters in the constituency on the ground of his caste, community and refrained the voters from voting for the petitioner on the ground of caste and community for the furtherance of prospect of the election of the respondent No. 1 and for prejudicially affecting the election of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that had the respondent No. 1 not indulged in the corrupt practice, the petitioner would have been elected and therefore the petitioner claims a declaration that he should be declared elected from the constituency. 2. The petition is contested mainly by the respondent No. 1. He has filed his written statement denying all the adverse allegations in the petition. On the basis of the rival pleadings as also the documents produced by the parties, following 21 issues were framed. I S S U E S 1. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent No. 1 has appealed to the voters of 75, Chandwad Assembly Constituency to vote for respondent No. 1 and not for petitioner on the basis of caste and community? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that the agents of respondent No. 1 and other person with the consent of respondent No. 1 have appealed to the voters to vote for respondents No. 1 and not for petitioner on the basis of caste and community? 3. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent No. 1 in furtherance of prospects of his election or for prejudicially affecting the election of petitioner, has promoted or attempted to promote feeling of enmity and hatred between different sections of the people on the basis of caste and community? 4. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent No. 1's agents and other persons with the consent of respondent No. 1 have promoted or attempted to promote feeling of enmity and hatred between different sections of people on the basis of caste and community? 5. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent No. 1 published false statements in relation to personal character of petitioner/conduct of petitioner knowing that the same are not true? 6. Whether petitioner proves that respondent No. 1's agents and other persons with the consent of respondent No. 1 published false statement in relation to the personal character/conduct of petitioner knowing that the same are not true? 7. If the answer to the issue Nos. 5 and/or 6 being in the affirmative, whether the petitioner further proves that the said statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice prospects of petitioner's election? 8. Whether petitioner proves that respondent No. 1 has committed corrupt practices under sections 123(2) and/or section 123(3-A) and/or 123(4) of Representation of People Act, 1951? 9. 7. If the answer to the issue Nos. 5 and/or 6 being in the affirmative, whether the petitioner further proves that the said statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice prospects of petitioner's election? 8. Whether petitioner proves that respondent No. 1 has committed corrupt practices under sections 123(2) and/or section 123(3-A) and/or 123(4) of Representation of People Act, 1951? 9. Whether the petitioner proves that the agents of the respondent No. 1 and/or other persons, with the consent of the respondent No. 1 and/or with the consent of his election agents, have indulged in corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(4) of the said Act? 10. If the answer to the issue No. 8 is in the affirmative, then whether petitioner further proves that if respondent No. 1 would not have indulged in corrupt practices in that event, petitioner himself would have been elected? 11. Whether petitioner proves that respondents No. 1 got prepared false three 7/12 extracts of 3 agricultural lands showing the name of petitioner's son? 12. Whether petitioner proves that respondent No. 1's agents and/or other persons with the consent of respondent No. 1 prepared false three 7/12 extracts showing the name of petitioner's son. 13. Whether petitioner proves that respondent No. 1 distributed false 7/12 extracts showing the name of petitioner's son in the constituency? 14. Whether petitioner proves that respondent No. 1's agents and/or other persons with the consent of respondent No. 1 distributed 7/12 extracts showing the name of petitioner's son in the constituency? 15. Whether petitioner proves that respondent No. 1 campaigned throughout in the constituency that petitioner has acquired agricultural lands worth about Rs. 40 crores in his son's name and/or that petitioner has amassed wealth and acquired other assets? 16. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent No. 1 and his agents and active workers with consent of respondent No. 1 interfered with free exercise of rights of voters by obstructing, assaulting and intimidating active workers and campaigners of petitioner? 17. Whether petitioner proves that the election of respondent No. 1 is void under section 100(1)(b) or 100(1)(d)(ii) or 100(1)(d)(iv) of Representation of People Act, 1951. 18. Whether respondent No. 1 proves that the petition does not comply with requirements of section 83 of the said Act? 19. Whether respondent No. 1 proves that petitioner has violated provisions of section 81 of the said Act? 20. 18. Whether respondent No. 1 proves that the petition does not comply with requirements of section 83 of the said Act? 19. Whether respondent No. 1 proves that petitioner has violated provisions of section 81 of the said Act? 20. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as duly elected candidate as per the provisions of section 101 of the said Act? 21. What relief and order? 3. Parties thereafter led documentary and oral evidence. The petitioner No. 1 examined himself and examined other witnesses also. The respondent No. 1 also examined himself and he also examined other witnesses. The other respondents did not lead any evidence. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the principle challenge in the petition is that the election of the respondent No. 1 as the Member of Legislative Assembly is liable to be set aside and declared null and void on the ground that he is guilty of the corrupt practice. 4A. From the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is clear that he has divided the allegations of corrupt practice into four groups. The first group consists of Issue Nos. 1 to 4 and part of issue No. 8. The second group consists of Issue No. 16. The third group consists of issue No. 11 to 15 and issue No. 9. The fourth group consists issue Nos. 5 to 9 and part of issue No. 8. The submission was advanced as per above groups and not as per the issues. The first corrupt practice, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, of which the respondent No. 1 is guilty is under sub-section (3) of section 123 of the Representation of People Act. According to the learned Counsel, the respondent No. 1, his agents and other persons with the consent of the respondent No. 1 appealed to the voters on the ground of caste of the respondent No. 1 to vote in favour of the respondent No. 1. They also appealed to the voters on the basis of the caste of the petitioner to refrain the voters from voting in favour of the petitioner. The learned Counsel next submitted that the second corrupt practice that the respondent No. 1 indulged in is as stated in section 123(2) of the Act. They also appealed to the voters on the basis of the caste of the petitioner to refrain the voters from voting in favour of the petitioner. The learned Counsel next submitted that the second corrupt practice that the respondent No. 1 indulged in is as stated in section 123(2) of the Act. The learned Counsel submits that the respondent No. 1, his agents and other persons with the consent of the respondent No. 1 used force to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights of the voters. He next submitted that the third corrupt practice in which the respondent No. 1 indulged in is the corrupt practice found in section 123(4) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, the respondent No. 1, his agents and other persons with the consent of the respondent No. 1 distributed in the constituency false and fabricated documents in relation to the personal character of the petitioner in order to prejudice the prospect of the petitioner's election as a Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The learned Counsel further submits that fourthly and lastly the corrupt practice in which the respondent No. 4 indulged is also to be found in section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act. According to the learned Counsel, the respondent No. 1, his agents and other persons with the consent of the respondent No. 1 made a statement of fact, which they knew and had reason to believe to be false, in relation to the personal character of the petitioner in order to prejudicially affect his prospect at the election. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the first submission, submits that the necessary averments in this regard are to be found in paragraph 7 of the petition. In paragraph 7, the petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 1, his agents and other persons with the consent of the respondent No. 1 appealed to the voters on the ground of his caste to seek votes in favour of the respondent No. 1. They also appealed on the basis of the caste of the petitioner in order to refrain the voters from voting for the petitioner. The learned Counsel further submits that in paragraph 26 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that in the Chandwad Assembly Constituency 75% of the voters belong to Maratha caste. They also appealed on the basis of the caste of the petitioner in order to refrain the voters from voting for the petitioner. The learned Counsel further submits that in paragraph 26 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that in the Chandwad Assembly Constituency 75% of the voters belong to Maratha caste. The respondent No. 1 also belongs to Maratha caste. The petitioner, however, belongs to Marwadi community and he belongs to Jain Digambar Sect. It is alleged in paragraph 26 that the respondent No. 1 filed his nomination paper on 23-8-1999 and before filing his nomination papers he held a public meeting on 23-8-1999 at the Market-yard at Chandwad. In that meeting he instigated the voters that he is Maratha by caste and appealed to the voters that they should vote for him because he belongs to Maratha community. It is further alleged that in that meeting one Ramkrushna Jadhav with the consent of the respondent No. 1 made a statement, which had tendency of creating enmity and hatred between the Marwadi and Maratha community. It is further alleged that in the same meeting one Ashok Shinde also with the consent of the respondent No. 1 delivered a speech on the same lines seeking votes on the basis of caste of the respondent No. 1, and calling upon the voters not to vote for the petitioner because of his caste. It is further alleged that the speeches similar to the one made in the meeting dated 23-8-1999 were made by the respondent No. 1, his supporters and election agents with the consent of the respondent No. 1 at various places in the constituency. In paragraph 30 the petitioner states that the respondent No. 1 and his supporters also distributed pamphlets to the voters to vote for their person meaning thereby that they should vote for the candidate belonging to Maratha community. In paragraph 28 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 1 and his supporters made speeches similar to the one made by them in the meeting held on 23-8-1999 in the public meetings held at village Wadner Bhairav on 26-8-1999, at village Salsane on 29-8-1999, at village Chandwad on 28-8-1999, at village Adgaon on 6-9-1999 and at other villages, which are mentioned in paragraph 29. 6. In the written statement, the respondent No. 1 had denied the allegations made in paragraph 7. 6. In the written statement, the respondent No. 1 had denied the allegations made in paragraph 7. The respondent No. 1 has also denied the allegations made in paragraph 26 of the petition. In reply to paragraph 28, the respondent No. 1 has denied the allegations made in paragraph 28 also. The respondent No. 1 has also specifically stated that some of the meetings which are mentioned in paragraph 28 of the petition were not actually held at those villages. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has produced at Exh. 25 School Leaving Certificate of the respondent No. 1, which shows that he is Maratha by caste. The learned Counsel submits that the respondent No. 1 has admitted in his deposition that he is Maratha by caste. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner who has been examined as P.W. 3 Jaychand Dipchand Kasliwal has made a categorical statement in his deposition that Maratha is a dominant caste in the constituency and there is no cross-examination of the petitioner on this aspect. The learned Counsel relied on the deposition of P.W. 4 Uttam Ganpatrao Bhalerao who has stated in paragraph 2 of his deposition that a public meeting of the respondent No. 1 was held at village Vadner Bhairav on 26-8-1999 and that he was present in that meeting. The witness has further stated that meeting was addressed by the respondent No. 1, who said that how long the voters would elect the Marwadi as M.L.A. He also said that we are Marathi and therefore we should elect a Marathi candidate. The learned Counsel also relies on the deposition of P.W. 6 Madhukar Bacchav, who has stated in paragraph 1 of his deposition that on 28th August, 1999 the respondent No. 1 held a public meeting at his village Sonaj at 8 a.m. The witness has stated this meeting was addressed by the respondent No. 1, wherein he stated that voters of the constituency are Marathi and therefore they should vote for Marathi candidate and Jain Marwadi should be sent to Rajasthan. The learned Counsel also relied on the deposition of P.W. 7 Ramdas Madhav Kolhe, who states in paragraph 3 of his deposition that a meeting was held by the respondent No. 1 at his village Raipur, where also he asked the voters to elect the Marathi candidate. The learned Counsel also relied on the deposition of P.W. 7 Ramdas Madhav Kolhe, who states in paragraph 3 of his deposition that a meeting was held by the respondent No. 1 at his village Raipur, where also he asked the voters to elect the Marathi candidate. In the examination-in-chief this witness, however, does not give the date of the meeting. But in cross-examination, he mentions the date of the meeting as 28-8-1999. The learned Counsel also relies on the deposition of P.W. 8 Madhukar Bhalerao, wherein he has stated that the respondent No. 1 held a public meeting at his village Wadner Bhairav on 26-8-1999 and 5-9-1999. The witness states that in that meeting the respondent No. 1 said that the Marwadi has been elected for 15 years and therefore this time a Maharashtrain should be elected. The reliance is also placed on deposition of P.W. 9 Harischandra Simant, who has stated in paragraph 2 of his deposition that the respondent No. 1 in a public meeting at his village Daraswadi on 6-9-1999 said that he is Maratha and it is his third attempt to get elected and therefore the people should vote for him. The witness further states that the respondent No. 1 said that the petitioner is Marwadi. Deposition of P.W. 10 Jibhau Rambhau Shewale is also relied on, who has stated that at his village Sonaj a public meeting was held by the respondent No. 1 on 20-8-1999. In that meeting the respondent No. 1 said that the petitioner is a Marwadi, who has been elected for 15 years and therefore now a Marathi candidate be elected. Reliance is also placed on the deposition of P.W. 11 Pradeep Todkar, who has stated that the respondent No. 1 held a public meeting at his village, of which he cannot give the exact date, but the meeting was held in the morning. According to the witness in his speech the respondent No. 1 again referred to the caste of the petitioner No. 1 and appealed to the voters to elect the candidate belonging to Maratha community. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that it is clear from the documentary evidence as also the deposition of the respondent No. 1 that he belongs to Maratha community. It is also clear from the statement of the petitioner that Maratha is a dominant community in the constituency. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that it is clear from the documentary evidence as also the deposition of the respondent No. 1 that he belongs to Maratha community. It is also clear from the statement of the petitioner that Maratha is a dominant community in the constituency. The learned Counsel submits that it is clear from the oral evidence of the witness referred to above that the respondent No. 1 in his speeches directly appealed to the voters to cast votes in his favour on the basis of his caste and refrained them from voting in favour of the petitioner because of his caste. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that it is clear from the deposition of the petitioner that he has no personal knowledge about the alleged speeches delivered by the respondent No. 1, wherein he is alleged to have made appeal to the voters on the basis of caste. The learned Counsel submits that it is significant to note that during the campaign, if according to the petitioner the respondent No. 1 was appearing on the basis of the caste, why there is no complaint made in this regard either to the Election Commission or to the police authority or the Returning Officer. In so far as deposition of P.W. 4 Uttam Bhalerao is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that according to this witness a public meeting was held by the respondent No. 1 on 26-8-1999 at village Wander Bhairav. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner himself has got produced on record the records maintained by the Police authority in relation to the public meeting held by the respondent No. 1 during the election campaign. That document is at Exh. 3 on the record and according to that document no public meeting was held by the respondent No. 1 on 26-8-1999 at village Wander Bhaitav. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the entire deposition of the P.W. 4 is incpable of being relied on. The learned Counsel points out that a clear suggestion has been given to this witness during his cross-examination that on 26-8-1999 there was no public meeting held by the respondent No. 1 at village Vadner Bhairav. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the entire deposition of the P.W. 4 is incpable of being relied on. The learned Counsel points out that a clear suggestion has been given to this witness during his cross-examination that on 26-8-1999 there was no public meeting held by the respondent No. 1 at village Vadner Bhairav. In so far as the deposition of P.W. 6 Madhukar Bacchav is concerned, according to this witness, a meeting was held on 20th August, 1999. The learned Counsel submits that as per the averments made in the petition itself, the respondent No. 1 filed his nomination paper on 23-8-1999 and therefore in the submission of the learned Counsel in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba another)1, reported in 1994(2) Supreme Court Cases 392, anything said or done in that meeting cannot be taken cognizance of for the purpose of constituting the corrupt practice. In so far as the deposition of P.W. 8 Madhukar Damodar Bhalerao is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that as per the record of the police authority, which is at Exh. 3, there is no public meeting held by the respondent No. 1 at village Wadner Bhairav on 26-8-1999, therefore, deposition of this witness is incapable of being believed. In so far as the deposition of P.W. 7 Ramdas Kolhe is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that it is clear from the cross-examination of this witness that this witness is biased against the respondent No. 1. He has admitted that he contested the election against the respondent No. 1 for directorship of the Nashik District Central Co-op. Bank against the respondent No. 1 and he lost in that election. The learned Counsel submits that the witness has also admitted that he was removed from the office of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti by passing a motion of no confidence against him. It has been suggested to this witness that the motion of no confidence was brought against the witness at the behest of the respondent No. 1. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that P.W. 7 being biased witness, no part of his deposition can be relied on. 7A. In so far as deposition of P.W. 9 Harishchandra Simant is concerned, according to this witness, a meeting was held at his village Daraswadi on 6-9-1999 by the respondent No. 1. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that P.W. 7 being biased witness, no part of his deposition can be relied on. 7A. In so far as deposition of P.W. 9 Harishchandra Simant is concerned, according to this witness, a meeting was held at his village Daraswadi on 6-9-1999 by the respondent No. 1. However, as per the record of the police authority at Exh. 3 no such meeting was held by the petitioner (sic respondent). So far as deposition of P.W. 10 Jibhau Shewale is concerned, again a meeting in relation to which the witness has deposed, according to the witness has been held on 20th August, 1999 before the respondent No. 1 filed his nomination and therefore nothing said in that meeting is relevant. In so far as the deposition of P.W. 11 Pradeep Todkar is concerned, according to this witness, a public meeting was held by the respondent No. 1 at village Dhodamba at 9.30 in the morning. In his cross-examination, the witness says that he does not remember the exact date of the meeting. But it was held around 2-9-1999. The learned Counsel points out that according to the police record meeting at village Dhodamba was held in the evening, whereas the witness is deposing about the meeting held in the morning. The learned Counsel submits that all the witnesses who have been examined by the petitioner belong to his own political party. They were his supporters during the campaign and therefore their evidence cannot be relied on by the Court of law. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner next submits that in so far as the corrupt practice alleged against the respondent No. 1 in relation to using of force is concerned, the learned Counsel relies on averments in paragraph 31 of the petition, wherein it is stated that the respondent No. 1 and his supporters with his consent used force against the workers of the petitioner, whose names are disclosed in this paragraph. In this connection, mention of incident dated 10-9-1999 has been made, where according to averments in paragraph 31, the workers of the petitioner were assaulted. These averments in paragraph 31 have been denied by the respondent No. 1 in paragraph 60 of his written statement. The learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly states that there is no documentary evidence in relation to these allegations. These averments in paragraph 31 have been denied by the respondent No. 1 in paragraph 60 of his written statement. The learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly states that there is no documentary evidence in relation to these allegations. The learned Counsel also submits that though in paragraph 31 of the petition incident dated 10-9-1999 has been narrated, there is no evidence on record in relation to that incident. The learned Counsel, however, submits that one incident dated 4-9-1999 has come on record by way of oral evidence. However, there are no averments in the petition in relation to this incident. The learned Counsel relies on the deposition of the petitioner i.e. P.W. 3. The learned Counsel relies on the statement made by P.W. 3 in paragraph 10, wherein it is stated that on 4-9-1999 he was holding a public meeting at village Bhoyegaon, where the supporters of the respondent No. 1 came in their tractors and jeep and they attacked the workers of the petitioner who were sitting in the meeting. They also tried to attack the petitioner, but that attack was frustrated by the bodyguard of the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that because of this attack his workers were frightened. The learned Counsel also relies on the document at Exh. 9 which is a copy of the police complaint made by the petitioner on 5-9-1999. The learned Counsel also relies on the deposition of P.W. 13 Dinkar Pagar, who has stated that on 4-9-1999 at village Bhoyegaon a public meeting of the petitioner was held between 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. When this meeting was being addressed by the petitioner one Jagan Borse and Bhau Borse got up and said that the petitioner cannot hold meeting in their village. They also started attacking the persons, who were present in the meeting. The witness further states that they reached the stage and beat up some of the workers, who have been named in the deposition. The witness further states that the persons who were injured were taken to the local hospital for treatment and those of the persons who were seriously hurt were taken to the hospital at Nasik. The witness states that the attackers were 40-50 in numbers and came to the meeting by tractors and jeep. He further states that they were shouting slogans in favour of the respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner. The witness states that the attackers were 40-50 in numbers and came to the meeting by tractors and jeep. He further states that they were shouting slogans in favour of the respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner. The learned Counsel further relies on the deposition of P.W. 16 Vilasrao Dhomase, who has stated in paragraph 2 of his deposition that on 4-9-1999 when he was at Chandwad in campaign office of the petitioner, he was told that the petitioner was to address a meeting at village Bhoyegaon. Therefore he went to that village. The meeting was started, where subsequently the petitioner also reached. During the course of that meeting some persons came to the meeting by jeep and tractors and they were wielding sticks. All these persons tried to disturb the meeting. They beat up the persons who were attending the meeting. They also tried to attack the petitioner and the attackers were shouting slogans in favour of the respondent No. 1. According to witness, the attackers were 40-50 in numbers. The learned Counsel further relies on deposition of P.W. 19, who has stated that he was present in that meeting held at village Bhoyegaon on 4-9-1999. He has stated that Gangadhar Borse, Dayaji Borse, Pandharinath Borse and Jagannath Borse, and Bahusaheb Borse and Dada Dhombre with other people came to the place of meeting in jeep and tractor. They were holding sticks and they attacked the meeting. He states that due to their attack he was injured. He was taken to the hospital, where he was admitted for treatment. He states that the attackers were 20-25 in numbers. He also states that a complaint to the police was lodged about this incident. The learned Counsel further states that in evidence another incident dated 9-9-1999 has come on record for which also there are no pleadings in the petition. To prove this incident, the learned Counsel relies on the deposition of P.W. 17 Mahendra Kardile, who states that while he was coming to village Chandwad in a motor vehicle, some people came in a jeep and three motor cycles and they attacked the vehicle as also the witness and other persons. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 states that no such incidents as alleged on 4-9-1999 and 9-9-1999 have taken place. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 states that no such incidents as alleged on 4-9-1999 and 9-9-1999 have taken place. The learned Counsel submits that P.W. 20 Ashok Eknath Bhosle, who is the election agent of the petitioner has stated in paragraph 8 of his deposition that whenever any incident of violence occurred, he informed his superiors in the party as also by sending fax message to the Election Commission of Maharashtra. However, neither any communication to the party superiors by the petitioner or his election agent nor any fax message to the Election Commission has been brought on record. The learned Counsel submits that the evidence in relation to the incidents dated 4-9-1999 and 9-9-1999 cannot be considered as it is inadmissible because admittedly there are no pleadings in relation to these incidents. The learned Counsel submits that though about the incident of 4-9-1999, the petitioner is supposed to have given police report, he does not even mention this incident in his election petition. Persons, who are supposed to have been attacked are also not mentioned. In paragraph 19 of his deposition, the petitioner states that he did not mention about the incidents dated 4-9-1999 and 9-9-1999, because the voters list and forms of polling agents were not snatched. The learned Counsel submits that this can hardly be an explanation for omitting to mention the incident, had the incident really taken place. The learned Counsel submits that in so far, as the incident dated 4-9-1999 is concerned, there are apparent contradictions in the versions of that incident given by various witnesses. P.W. 13 Dinkar Pagar has narrated the incident and from his version it is clear that according to him Jagan Borse and Bhausaheb Borse were already present in the meeting, when the meeting started and during the course of the meeting they started attacking the persons who were present in the meeting. This witness in paragraph 4 of his deposition states that the persons also attacked the petitioner and the petitioner received head injury. He also states that the petitioner was also admitted in hospital, however, subsequently he retracts that statement. This witness in paragraph 4 of his deposition states that the persons also attacked the petitioner and the petitioner received head injury. He also states that the petitioner was also admitted in hospital, however, subsequently he retracts that statement. The learned Counsel submits that so far as P.W. 16 Vilasrao Dhomase is concerned, according to this witness, the persons who are supposed to be the attackers were not present in the meeting when the meeting started, but they came in jeep and tractors after meeting started. The learned Counsel submits that so far as the number of attackers is concerned, each witness is giving different version. The learned Counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that such incident took place, none of these witnesses even alleged that such incident took place with the consent of the respondent No. 1. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, even if this amounts to corrupt practice, this cannot be attributed to the petitioner. In so far as the incident dated 9-9-1999 is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that bare reading of the deposition of the witness P.W. 17 shows that the entire version is unbelievable. According to this witness, he alongwith other persons were attacked on the road, the vehicle was damaged, he identified the attackers, but he never bothered to inform either the petitioner or to report the matter to the Police authorities. The learned Counsel submits that the version of the incident given by this witness P.W. 17 is incapable of being believed. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in relation to the corrupt practice about distribution of false and fabricated of 7/12 extracts are concerned, submits that the necessary allegations about this are found in paragraph 10 of the petition. The learned Counsel submits that in paragraph 10 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 1 got prepared 3 false 7/12 extracts of 3 agricultural lands at village oras Khurd, taluka: Kudal, District: Sindhudurg. The total area of the lands is shows as 31 Hectors 30 Ares. In these 7/12 extracts the name of the son of the petitioner Bhushan is shown as the occupant of these lands. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 falsely got the name of the petitioner's son written in the 7/12 extracts of these lands through his agent and other persons. In these 7/12 extracts the name of the son of the petitioner Bhushan is shown as the occupant of these lands. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 falsely got the name of the petitioner's son written in the 7/12 extracts of these lands through his agent and other persons. The petitioner states that the statement made in these 7/12 extracts is a statement of fact, which is false and which the respondent No. 1 believes to be false and does not believe it to be true. The learned Counsel submits that the respondent No. 1 and his supporters distributed these 7/12 extracts in the constituency. In so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, in paragraph 20 of the written statement, he has denied the allegations made in this regard. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has produced documentary evidence in support of this submission. The documentary evidence is in the shape of zerox copies of the false and fabricated 7/12 extracts, which were distributed by the respondent No. 1 and his supporters in the constituency, which is at Exh. 23 of the record. At Exh. 7 which is the certified copy of the 7/12 extracts of the lands, which do not show the name of the son of the petitioner. At Exh. 5 is the police complaint made by the petitioner in relation to the distribution of the 7/12 extracts in the constituency. Exh. 6 is the copy of the complaint filed in the Magistrate's Court in relation to the same incident. Exh. 19 is certified copy of the panchanama prepared by the police authority when they conducted raid at the residence of the respondent No. 1 and his supporters pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner and at Exh. 20 is the report submitted by the police to the Magistrate in relation to the investigation into complaint made by the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that following witnesses namely, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 10, P.W. 14 and P.W. 18 have deposed that this false and fabricated 7/12 extracts were distributed by the respondent No. 1 himself. Other witnesses namely P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 8 P.W. 9 have deposed that 7/12 extracts were distributed by other persons with the consent of the petitioner. 10. Other witnesses namely P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 8 P.W. 9 have deposed that 7/12 extracts were distributed by other persons with the consent of the petitioner. 10. The learned Counsel refers to the deposition of P.W. 6 Madhukar Bacchav, wherein the witness has stated in paragraph 2 that on 9-9-1999 the respondent No. 1 came to him and showed to him 7/12 extracts and said that the petitioner has during the last 15 years has amassed so much wealth. The learned Counsel also refers to the deposition of P.W. 7 Ramdas Kolhe, who states that on 10-9-1999 the respondent No. 1 came to his village namely Raipur in a jeep, stopped his jeep at the Bus-station, where about 100 people were present, he called his workers and handed over to them a bunch of papers and said that these papers are 7/12 extracts, showing that the petitioner has purchased property in Sindhudurg district by illegal means. The witness further states that one of the workers of the respondent No. 1 handed over a bunch of these 7/12 extracts to him. The learned Counsel, thereafter, refers to the deposition of P.W. 10 Jibau Shewale, who states that on 9-9-1999 at 10. p.m. the respondent No. 1 came to his village and handed over to him 7/12 extracts which showed that the son of the petitioner is having land in Sindhudurg District. The learned Counsel then refers to the deposition of P.W. 14 Dattatray Gunjal, who states in paragraph 3 that on 8-9-1999 the respondent No. 1 came to him and handed over to him 7/12 extracts and after seeing those extracts he turned against the petitioner. The learned Counsel then refers to deposition of P.W. 18 Anna Kadnor, who states that on 9-9-1999, the respondent No. 1 came to his village namely Dahegaon and handed over to him copies of 7/12 extracts of the lands in Sindhudurg District, which showed that Bhushan Kasliwal is the owner of the lands. The witness says that the respondent No. 1 told him, that the son of the petitioner own 75 acres of land worth about Rs. 40 crores, and therefore he did not vote for the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that thus it is clear from the deposition of these witnesses that the respondent No. 1 himself distributed 7/12 extracts, which are false and fabricated. 40 crores, and therefore he did not vote for the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that thus it is clear from the deposition of these witnesses that the respondent No. 1 himself distributed 7/12 extracts, which are false and fabricated. The learned Counsel further refers to the deposition of P.W. 14 Uttam Bhalerao, who states that on 9-9-1999 one Madhukar Bhalerao brought to him 7/12 extracts, which he said were given to him by Shri Khaire for distribution in the village. The learned Counsel, then, refers to the deposition of P.W. 8 Madhukar Bhalerao who states that on 10-9-1999 one Shankar Khaire met him and gave him bunch of 7/12 extracts and said that the petitioner has purchased the lands worth Rs. 40 crores in Sindhudurg district. The learned Counsel, then refers to the deposition of P.W. 5 Bhikaji Ghule, who states that on 9-9-1999, Advocate Vinayak Ghule and Advocate Narendra Kasliwal came to see him at his residence and handed over to him 7/12 extracts. The leaned Counsel lastly refers to the deposition of P.W. 9 Harichandra, who states that on 9-9-1999 Nandu Kasliwal and Raju Sanklecha gave him 7/12 extracts, which were distributed at the bus-station. The learned Counsel, thus, submits that it is clear from the deposition of these witnesses that the petitioner (sic respondent) and his supporters distributed 7/12 extracts, which were fabricated by the respondent No. 1 and this was done by the respondent No. 1 and his supporters to prejudice the prospect of the petitioner at the election. 11. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that so far as this ground is concerned, allegations/averments are to be found in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the Election Petition. Perusal of the verification clause of the election petition shows that the contents of paragraphs 10, 11 12 have been verified by the petitioner as true to his personal knowledge. The learned Counsel submits that in paragraph 14 of the election petition the petitioner himself has stated that he has no personal knowledge in this regard. The allegations are based on the inference drawn by him on the basis of 7/12 extracts. The learned Counsel further submits that it is clear from the deposition of the petitioner that he did not personally see any person including the respondent No. 1 himself distributing these 7/12 extracts. The allegations are based on the inference drawn by him on the basis of 7/12 extracts. The learned Counsel further submits that it is clear from the deposition of the petitioner that he did not personally see any person including the respondent No. 1 himself distributing these 7/12 extracts. His entire knowledge about this is based on information received by him from others. However, in the verification clause of the petition he has stated that the information contained in the above referred paragraph is true to his personal knowledge. The learned Counsel submits that, thus, the verification clause of the petition itself is defective and therefore the averments in the above referred paragraphs regarding 7/12 extracts cannot be taken into consideration and have to be ignored. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has stated in his deposition that after coming to know that 7/12 extracts were distributed, he lodged a complaint with the police, the Tahsildar, the Election Commission as also the Collector. He has also produced on record a copy of that complaint which is at Exh. 5. The learned Counsel points out that in the complaint at Exh. 5, the Tahsildar has stated that he has received the complaint on 10-9-1999 at 6.30 p.m. The petitioner, however, in his deposition states that the statement made by him, in his election petition that the complaint was lodged to the Returning Officer at 6.30 p.m. is wrong. He states that he has lodged the complaint at 10.30 a.m. on 10-9-1999. The learned Counsel submits that thus the petitioner is not in a position to make correct statement about the time when he lodged the complaint. The learned Counsel further points out that in the complaint at Exh. 5, the petitioner has stated that the 7/12 extracts were distributed in the constituency on 10-9-1999. He submits that thus there is a clear statement made in the complaint that 7/12 extracts have been distributed on 10-9-1999, of the witnesses who have been examined on this point by the petitioner namely P.W. 6 Madhukar Bacchav, he states that 7/12 extract was given to him on 9-9-1999. P.W. 10 Jibau Shewale also states that 7/12 extracts were given to him on 9-9-1999. P.W. 14 Dattatraya Gunjal states that 7/12 extracts were given to him on 8-9-1999. P.W. 18 Anna Kadnor also states that he received 7/12 extracts on 9-9-1999. P.W. 10 Jibau Shewale also states that 7/12 extracts were given to him on 9-9-1999. P.W. 14 Dattatraya Gunjal states that 7/12 extracts were given to him on 8-9-1999. P.W. 18 Anna Kadnor also states that he received 7/12 extracts on 9-9-1999. Thus, out of the witnesses examined on this point, four witnesses examined by the petitioner who say that the 7/12 extracts were given to them personally by the respondent, three witnesses say that they received 7/12 extract on 9-9-1999, whereas one witness says that he received it on 8-9-1999. It is only P.W. 7 Ramdas Kolhe, who states that on 10-9-1999 he saw that the respondent No. 1 distributed the 7/12 extracts at the bus-station. The learned Counsel points out P.W. 7 does not claim to have received 7/12 extracts from the respondent No. 1 personally. The learned Counsel further submits that so far as the other witnesses on this point are concerned, P.W. 4 Uttam Bhalerao states that Madhukar Bhalerao gave to him 7/12 extracts on 9-9-1999. P.W. 5 Bhikaji Ghule also states that Advocate Vinayakrao Ghule and Advocate Narendra Kasliwal gave to him 7/12 extracts on 9-9-1999. P.W. 9 Harichandra Simant also states that on 9-9-1999 Nandu Kasliwal and Raju Sanklecha were distributing 7/12 extracts at the bus station. It is only P.W. 8 Madhukar Bhalerao, who states that Shankar Khaire gave 7/12 extract to him, on 10-9-1999. Thus out of nine witnesses examined, only one witness states that he actually received 7/12 extract on 10-9-1999 from Shri Shankar Khaire, other witnesses namely P.W. 7 Ramdas Kolhe has only seen the 7/12 extracts being distributed by the respondent No. 1 at bus-station on 10-9-1999. All other witnesses say that they received 7/12 extracts on 9-9-1999 and one even says that he received it on 8-9-1999. The learned Counsel submits that in the complaint dated 10-9-1999 it is the specific case of the petitioner that 7/12 extracts were distributed only on 10-9-1999. In so far as the complaint filed in the Court of Magistrate is concerned, the petitioner does not give the exact date when the 7/12 extracts according to him have been distributed. In paragraph 1 of the complaint, he has stated that the offence alleged in the complaint was committed around 9-9-1999. In so far as the complaint filed in the Court of Magistrate is concerned, the petitioner does not give the exact date when the 7/12 extracts according to him have been distributed. In paragraph 1 of the complaint, he has stated that the offence alleged in the complaint was committed around 9-9-1999. The learned Counsel, thus, submits that there is variance in the version put up by the petitioner in the police complaint dated 10-9-1999 and the oral evidence that has been produced by the petitioner on record. The learned Counsel further points out that in paragraph 11 of the election petition the petitioner has stated that the petitioner's workers found in the night of 9-9-1999 that false and fabricated 7/12 extracts were distributed. The petitioner has also made a positive statement that 7/12 extracts were distributed in the night on 9-9-1999. However, in the complaint to the police in paragraph 4, the petitioner has specifically stated that 7/12 extracts were distributed on 10-9-1999. The learned Counsel further submits that in the complaint filed in the Magistrate Court, 4 persons have been cited as witnesses, out of those 4 persons only 1 has been examined as witness in this case namely Anna Kadnor. He is P.W. 18. Other persons have been examined on this point have not been cited as witnesses in the Magistrate Court. The learned Counsel points out that P.W. 18 Anna Kadnor states that on 9-9-1999 the respondent No. 1 came to his village alongwith Narendra Kasliwal and Rajendra Sanklecha and Shankar Khaire and handed over to him a copy of 7/12 extracts and this was done between 7 and 7.30 p.m. In the petition, the petitioner has stated in paragraph 11 that Anna Kadnor was one of the person who received 7/12 extracts in the night on 9-9-1999. He came to the petitioner's residence on 10-9-1999 and informed the petitioner about it. Perusal of the deposition of this witness P.W. 18, however, shows that this witness did not meet the petitioner on 10-9-1999. Though he states that he met the petitioner's son Bhushan. He specifically states that he met the petitioner about 15 days after 9-9-1999. The learned Counsel further points out that though this witness states that he met the petitioner 15 days after 9-9-1999, when he came to his village. Though he states that he met the petitioner's son Bhushan. He specifically states that he met the petitioner about 15 days after 9-9-1999. The learned Counsel further points out that though this witness states that he met the petitioner 15 days after 9-9-1999, when he came to his village. He further states that when he met the petitioner at the place of ex-sarpanch of his village. The petitioner told him that he has already filed a case in the Court about 7/12 extracts. The complaint in the Magistrate Court was filed on 5-10-1999. The learned Counsel submits that it is clear from the deposition of this witness, therefore, that this witness did not meet the petitioner from 9-9-1999 till after the petitioner filed complaint in the Magistrate Court. The learned Counsel submits that thus, either the statement made in the petition that Anna Kadnor met the petitioner and told him about the 7/12 extracts on 10-9-1999 is correct or the version given by the witness P.W. 18 Anna Kadnor in his deposition is correct. Both the versions cannot be correct at the same time. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that no reliable evidence is placed on record by the petitioner to establish that either the respondent No. 1 or any other persons with his consent had distributed 7/12 extracts. The learned Counsel submits that so far as other persons are concerned, there is no evidence on record that other persons distributed these 7/12 extracts with the consent of the respondent No. 1 or at his behest. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly urged that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of corrupt practice defined in section 123(4) of the Act. The learned Counsel submits that the respondent No. 1, his agent and other persons with his consent made a statement of fact, which is false, which they also believe to be false that the petitioner has amassed wealth by illegal means. The learned Counsel invites my attention to paragraph 20 of the election petition. It is alleged in paragraph 20 that the respondent No. 1 made a statement in the public meeting on 20-8-1999 that the petitioner has purchased a rerolling mill of 36 kilos in MIDC at Jalana ten months back and the mill is worth Rs. 2 crores, that the has purchased a Contessa car costing more than Rs. It is alleged in paragraph 20 that the respondent No. 1 made a statement in the public meeting on 20-8-1999 that the petitioner has purchased a rerolling mill of 36 kilos in MIDC at Jalana ten months back and the mill is worth Rs. 2 crores, that the has purchased a Contessa car costing more than Rs. 6 lakhs, two jeeps-tracks, costs of each jeep is more than Rs. 4 lakh. Th petitioner further states in paragraph 21 that on 20-8-1999 the respondent No. 1 stated in the public meeting that the petitioner has purchased vehicles like Tata mobile, Contessa, Armada. It is alleged in paaragraph 23 of the petition that on 23-8-1999 the respondent No. 1 in the public meeting stated that the petitioner is a corrupt person. The petitioner further states in paragraph 24 of the petition tha in a public meeting at village vadner on 5-9-1999 the respondent No. 1 stated that the petitioner has amassed wealth during the last 15 years by corrupt means. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, failry conceded that so far as the allegations in paragraphs 20 and 21, which relates to the public meeting dated 20-8-1999 that is before the respondent No. 1 filed his nomination papers cannot be taken into consideration. However, statements made in the subsequent paragraph i.e. about meetings dated 23-8-1999 and 5-9-1999, according to the learned Counsel do constitute corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the deposition of P.W. 3 i.e. the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has given details of his wealth. The petitioner has stated that the house where he is residing is an ancestral house. After becoming M.L.A., he has been allotted a flat at Worli, Mumbai by a Co-operative Housing Society, of which he has not yet received possession. According to him apart from this he does not own any other immoveable property. However, his wife owns a flat at Chandwad. This flat was purchased 8-9 years back. His wife also owns a gala in front of Rang Mahal at Chandwad. She has also purchased a old house at Chandwad. The petitioner has further stated that he has started fabrication business 7-8- years back in partnership with one Gopal Bansod, who has expired 2-3 years after starting partnership business. This flat was purchased 8-9 years back. His wife also owns a gala in front of Rang Mahal at Chandwad. She has also purchased a old house at Chandwad. The petitioner has further stated that he has started fabrication business 7-8- years back in partnership with one Gopal Bansod, who has expired 2-3 years after starting partnership business. The petitioner further states that his wife also holds a wholesale kerosene licence and that she is holding that licence for the last 7-8 years. He further states that during his tenure as Member of Legislative of Assembly he received an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs towards allowances, honorarium etc. The petitioner has further stated that he has 1/6th share in his joint family land, which is to be extent of 135 acres. The petitioner further states that he owns a motor vehicle called Tata mobile, but that vehicle is presently in damaged condition. That he has purchased a Contessa in the name of his son and he does not own any other vehicle. The learned Counsel, thereafter, invites attention to the deposition of P.W. 7, who states in paragraph 3 that the respondent No. 1 in a meeting held at his village said that the petitioner has purchased an industry worth Rs. 2 crores and that the petitioner has amassed wealth by illegal means. The learned Counsel also refers to the deposition of P.W. 9 Harichandra Simant, wherein he has stated that the respondent No. 1 in his speech at the meeting held on 6-9-1999 at his village stated that the petitioner has purchased six new cars for the election and that he has factories at Aurangabad and Jalna. The learned Counsel further refers to the deposition of P.W. 11 Pradip Todkar, who stated that in the meeting held at his village on 2-9-1999, the respondent No. 1 stated that the petitioner has amassed wealth by illegal means. Lastly the learned Counsel refers to the deposition of P.W. 14 Dattatraya Gunjal, who states that in the public meeting held in his village the respondent No. 1 stated that the petitioner is corrupt, that he has constructed a bungalow and has purchased estate at Jalna. He further states that the petitioner has purchased lands in the name of his son. 13. He further states that the petitioner has purchased lands in the name of his son. 13. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that in so far as the petition is concerned, the allegation in relation to these grounds which are relevant for the purpose of this petition are to be found in paragraph 23, which relates to a meeting dated 23-8-1999 held at village Sonaj and the other at village Vadner held on 5-9-1999. So far as meeting dated 23-8-1999 is concerned, the learned Counsel points out that according to police record, which has been produced in this case, there is no record that a public meeting at those villages were held by the respondent No. 1, on the date mentioned. The learned Counsel submits that even perusal of the deposition of the witnesses relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not substantiate the allegations made in the above referred paragraph of the petition. The learned Counsel submits that in any case, it is clear from the petition, examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the petitioner that he has been making consistent attempt in concealing the property that he holds. The learned Counsel points out that in the petition, the petitioner has stated that he holds following properties : 1. 1/6th share in the ancestral property in Chadwad taluka; 2. One flat at Nasik; 3. One Tata Motor purchased about 10 years back; 4. One Contessa car purchased in the name of his son Bhushan; In the examination-in-chief he states that he owns following properties; 1. 1/6th share in the 135 acres of land; 2. One flat at Worli, Bombay; 3. One flat at Chadwad in the name of his wife; 4. One gala in front of Rang Mahal, Chadwad in the name of his wife; 5. One old house in the name of his son; 6. A Tata mobile; 7. One contessa; 8. One old house near ancestral house at Chandwad; In the cross-examination, the petitioner has disclosed that he owns following properties; Vehicle 1. One Tata Mobile; 2. One Contessa; 3. Mahindra Jeep; 4. One Armada Jeep in the name of his son-in-law; 5. Tempo-track in the name of his brother-in-law; Agricultural Lands 6. Land purchased from brother Gulabchand; 7. Land purchased from brother Subhashchandra; 8. Land purchased from brother Suresh; 9. One Tata Mobile; 2. One Contessa; 3. Mahindra Jeep; 4. One Armada Jeep in the name of his son-in-law; 5. Tempo-track in the name of his brother-in-law; Agricultural Lands 6. Land purchased from brother Gulabchand; 7. Land purchased from brother Subhashchandra; 8. Land purchased from brother Suresh; 9. Land purchased from Rajendra Gangurde; Houses 10. One flat at Nasik; 11. One Bungalow at Swami Samarth Nagar; 12. One old house at Chandwad from F.S. Kasliwal; 13. House No. 201 purchased from Laxmibai Sonaje; 14. House No. 209 purchased from Janakabai; 15. House No. 316 purchased from Hiralal Shamlal; 16. House No. 177 purchased from Ramchandra Sonaje; 14. The learned Counsel thus submits that it is clear from the record that the petitioner has been making consistent attempt to conceal his properties and perusal of the deposition of the petitioner would show that he comes out as a person, who feels guilty about his owning so much property. The learned Counsel points out that various stands taken by the petitioner regarding partition of his ancestral land are inconsistent and contradictory. The petitioner wanted to conceal from the Court that his ancestral lands have been partitioned amongst his brothers and that he has purchased the shares of his brothers. The learned Counsel submits that apart from the fact that the petitioner has not been able to show that the respondent No. 1 made any statement about his personal character or acquisition of any property by him, the petitioner who is deposing about his properties comes out as an untruthful witness incapable of being relied on by any Court. 15. The Supreme Court in its judgement in the case of (Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed others)2, reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 290, in paragraph 9 has observed thus : "However, we have to remember another factor. An election once held is not to be treated in a light-hearted manner and defeated candidates or disgruntled electors should not get away with it by filing election petitions on unsubstantial grounds and irresponsible evidence, thereby introducing a serious element of uncertainty in the verdict already rendered by the electorate. An election is a politically sacred public act, not of one person or of one official, but of the collective will of the whole constituency. An election is a politically sacred public act, not of one person or of one official, but of the collective will of the whole constituency. Courts naturally must respect this public expression secretly written and show extreme reluctance to set aside or declare void an election which has already been held unless clear and cogent testimony compelling the Court to uphold the corrupt practice alleged against the returned candidate is adduced. Indeed election petitions where corrupt practices are imputed must be regarded as proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature wherein strict proof is necessary. The burden is therefore heavy on him who assails an election which has been concluded." 16. Now to find out whether the petitioner has succeeded in proving that the election of the respondent No. 1 as a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly is vitiated, because, during the process of election the respondent No. 1 adopted corrupt practice, the documentary and oral evidence led by the parties is to be examined keeping in mind the above quoted observations of the Supreme Court, which in clear terms lay down that the election petition where corrupt practices are imputed has to be regarded as proceeding of quasi-criminal nature, wherein strict proof is necessary and the burden to prove that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of corrupt practice alleged against him is heavily on the petitioner. Therefore, the inquiry has to be made as to whether the petitioner has successfully discharged that burden. 17. The first corrupt practice alleged against the respondent No. 1 is appeal to the electors on the basis of caste. According to the petitioner, this appeal has been made in speeches delivered at various public meeting held during the election process. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 points out that in relation to many of the public meeting, wherein the respondent No. 1 is supposed to have made these speeches, there is no proof of a meeting at that village having been held at that time except the oral testimony of the witnesses. The petitioner himself got produced on record the record maintained by the police authority about various public meetings held by the respondent No. 1 during the election campaign. It is clear that a candidate at Assembly Election cannot hold a public meeting without obtaining necessary permission from the police authority. The petitioner himself got produced on record the record maintained by the police authority about various public meetings held by the respondent No. 1 during the election campaign. It is clear that a candidate at Assembly Election cannot hold a public meeting without obtaining necessary permission from the police authority. It is nobody's case that during the election campaign, the respondent No. 1 held public meetings without the permission of the police authority. In my opinion, therefore, when the police record does not show that the public meeting was held at a particular village at a particular time, as stated by the witnesses, then the testimony of that witness cannot be believed because it goes contrary to the records. It is further pertinent to note that during the entire election campaign there is not a single complaint made by the petitioner to any authorities that the respondent No. 1 is canvassing votes on the basis of caste. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 in his submission has referred to in detail to the deposition of each of the witnesses examined by the petitioner on this point and, in my opinion, the criticism of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the deposition of the witnesses examined by the petitioner on this point is quite justified. It is further to be seen here that most of the witnesses have been examined by the petitioner are his supporters and they belong to his political party. It is true that merely because they are supporters of the petitioner and belong to his political party, their evidence cannot be rejected as unreliable. However, it is also true that without the evidence being substantiated in material particulars, the deposition cannot be accepted of such witnesses. Taking over all view of the oral evidence tendered by the petitioner on this point, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioner has discharged the burden of proof on this point and therefore, it has to be held that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the respondent No. 1 or his supporters canvassed votes by appealing to the caste. 18. 18. So far as the second allegation of corrupt practice against the respondent No. 1 namely of using force is concerned, it is clear that the incident which has been narrated in the petition is concerned, there is no evidence led to prove the incident. However, the evidence has been led to narrate two incidents, which are not to be found in the petition. Really speaking, therefore, the evidence led in the absence of pleadings in relation to these incidents is really not admissible, however, as the evidence has come on record, it can be examined to find out whether it can be said that the petitioner has established by cogent evidence that such incident really took place. It is pertinent to note here that the reason that has been given by the petitioner for omitting to mention these incidents in his election petition is incomprehensivable. When it was put to the petitioner, while the petitioner was in the witness box, he stated that he did not mention about the incidents dated 4-9-1999 and 9-9-1999 because the voters list and forms of polling agents were not snatched. Thus, in truth and substance, there is no reason given by the petitioner for omitting these two incidents from the petition. It is further to be seen here that the election agent of the petitioner has stated in his deposition that he has written to his superiors in the party and had also sent fax message to the Election Commission regarding these incidents of violence during the election campaign. However, no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced by the petitioner. One also does not find any explanation for non-production of this documentary evidence, which according to the election agent of the petitioner exist. So far as the incident dated 4-9-1999 is concerned, if one peruses the deposition of the witnesses who have been examined to prove this incident, it shows that there are material contradiction in the deposition of these witnesses, as to manner in which the incident took place. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has criticized the depositions of the witnesses in detail and, in my opinion, the criticism is justified. It is further to be seen here that the respondent No. 1 has also examined the witnesses in relation to the incident dated 4-9-1999. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has criticized the depositions of the witnesses in detail and, in my opinion, the criticism is justified. It is further to be seen here that the respondent No. 1 has also examined the witnesses in relation to the incident dated 4-9-1999. According to this witness, he was attacked by the supporters of the petitioner on 4-9-1999. The police report has been lodged by this witness and on the basis of the police report lodged by this witness, prosecution has been launched and this fact has been admitted by one of the witnesses examined by the petitioner. In these circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has succeeded in proving this corrupt practice against the respondent No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Now, this takes me to the corrupt practice which was pressed in service by the petitioner with some seriousness i.e. distribution of false 7/12 extracts in the constituency. Now so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the oral and documentary evidence that has come on record is contradictory. According to statement made in the police complaint at Exh. 5, the petitioner has stated that the 7/12 extracts were distributed by the respondent No. 1 and his supporters on 10-9-1999. The reason given was that holding of public meetings came to an end on 9-9-1999, the polling was on 11-9-1999 and therefore, so that the petitioner should not get an opportunity to contradict the 7/12 extracts were distributed on 10-9-1999. It becomes clear from the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, which have been referred to in detail above that most of the witnesses who have been examined on this point by the petitioner said that they received 7/12 extracts on 9-9-1999. It is further to be seen here that in the complaint filed before the Magistrate, the petitioner does not indicate the exact date when these 7/12 extracts were distributed. It is further to be seen here that the petitioner goes on contradicting himself also on the point of time at which the police complaint was given. The petitioner in his deposition insists that the police complaint was given in the morning on 10-9-1999. Perusal of the police complaint at Exh. It is further to be seen here that the petitioner goes on contradicting himself also on the point of time at which the police complaint was given. The petitioner in his deposition insists that the police complaint was given in the morning on 10-9-1999. Perusal of the police complaint at Exh. 5 shows that there is a clear endorsement made by the Returning Officer that it was received by him on 6.30 in the evening. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner has admitted in the witness box that it is for the first time in the witness box that he is saying that he gave the complaint in the morning on 10-9-1999. It is further to be seen here that the averments in the petition in this regard have been verified by the petitioner on the basis of his personal knowledge, whereas it has come on record, even it has been admitted by the petitioner that he does not have any personal knowledge in this regard and that his entire knowledge is derived from the information received by him from the others. It is thus clear that there is no proper verification of the averments made in the petition in this regard and therefore really speaking all the averments made in the petition in this regard can be ignored. However, even if the averments are taken into consideration, it is clear that there is no definite evidence on record to indicate as to when exactly these 7/12 extracts are supposed to have been distributed in the constituency and as to who has distributed these 7/12 extracts. The behaviour of the witnesses of the petitioner, many of whom are his supporters, canvassers and voters, as deposed by them appears to be strange to say least. Many of them said that they belong to the political party of the petitioner. However, they also said that the moment these 7/12 extracts were shown to them they turned against the petitioner completely believing, according to their version the statement made by the respondent No. 1 and his supporters, that the lands of which 7/12 extracts showed to be standing in the name of the son of the petitioner being worth crores of rupees. They stated that though after seeing the 7/12 extracts they did not vote for the petitioner still mostly of them worked as polling agent and counting agents of the petitioner. To my mind, the entire episode is incapable of being believed. There is no explanation to be found as to why persons who have deposed about the incident in this Election Petition have not been cited as a witness in the complaint before the Magistrate. There is also no explanation to be found as to why only one of the person who has been cited as a witness in the complaint filed before the Magistrate has been examined in this Election Petition. Even Perusal of the deposition of that witness shows that he contradicts the version given by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the witness met him on 10-9-1999, however, according to the witness there was no meeting between him and the petitioner till after the complaint in the Magistrate's Court was filed. To my mind these material contradictions render the testimony of this witness incapable of being accepted. Taking over all view of the evidence on record, in my opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner established it beyond doubt that it is the respondent No. 1 or his supporters who distributed the 7/12 extracts during the process of election. 20. So far as the last submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, according to the averments in the petition the statements are made in only two meetings, one held on 23-8-1999 and other held on 5-9-1999 are required to be considered. In so far as the meeting dated 23-8-1999 is concerned, again there is no evidence to show whether this meeting was held after the nomination papers were filed or before the nomination papers were filed, because, nomination papers were filed by the respondent No. 1 on the same date i.e. 23-8-1999. Again, there is no documentary evidence available on record that on these dates and at the time mentioned and at the villages mentioned these meetings were held. Therefore, there is only oral evidence on record in support of this allegation. The petitioner himself, has produced the records maintained by the police authority regarding the public meetings held by the respondent No. 1 during the course of campaign. Therefore, there is only oral evidence on record in support of this allegation. The petitioner himself, has produced the records maintained by the police authority regarding the public meetings held by the respondent No. 1 during the course of campaign. That record does not show that the public meetings were held by the petitioner at the villages mentioned in the petition on these two dates namely 23-8-1999 and 5-9-1999 at the villages mentioned in the petition. Therefore, the oral evidence on this point is contrary to the documentary evidence on record and therefore only on the basis of such oral evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has established this charge of corrupt practice against the respondent No. 1 beyond the reasonable doubt. I further find that the criticism advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 in relation to the tenor of the deposition of the petitioner is quite justified. I also found that when the deposition of the petitioner was being recorded before me, he came out as a witness, who was consistently trying to conceal certain information from the Court and his attempt was not to allow certain information to come on record. The statements made by him about the properties held by him, his wife and his son and other relatives are contradictory. There was a definite attempt made by the petitioner to conceal certain information from the Court regarding the property held by him. The impression that one got from the deposition of the petitioner and the manner in which he was deposing is that the petitioner felt guilty about the fact that he owns so much properties. Taking over all views of the matter, the evidence on record in this regard, in my opinion, on this point also the petitioner has not been able to discharge the heavy burden which lies on him. 21. To conclude, therefore, to my mind the petitioner has not been able to discharge the burden placed on him to prove that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of any of the corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner. 22. In the result, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition was defended only the respondent No. 1, therefore, costs shall be payable only to the respondent No. 1. Certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed. -----