In the 7th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2000 held on 22.2.2000, the result of which was declared on 25.2.2000, the respondent No. l, Shri Radhabinod Koijam was declared elected form No.9 Thangrneiband Assembly Constituency. The election of the respondent No. 1 was challenged by the petitioner Shri N. Binoy Singh in Election Petition No. 4 of 2000, on the allegation of malpractice, corrupt practice and fraud alleged to have been committed by the returned candidate. 2. The Civil Misc Case No.6 of 2000 has been filed by the respondent No. 1, the returned candidate for dismissal of the Election Petition No.4 of 2000 on the following grounds : (1) That the election petition is bad for non-compliance of the provisions of section 83 of the Representation of the Peoples Act as the material particulars have not been disclosed; (2) The allegations are quite vague and no detail particulars have been given; (3) That the affidavit filed by the election petitioner is not in prescribed form No. 25 as provided under Rule 94A and the verification has not been appended as required. 3. So far the ground No. 3 is concerned, it is admitted that mistakes were later on rectified and corrected. So far the allegation regarding defect in the verification there are catena of decisions of the Apex Court. In Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore a Constitution Bench has held in unmistakable terms that a defect in the verification of a petition as required by section 83 (1) (c) of the Act was not fatal to the maintainability of the petition and that a defect in the affidavit was not a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. Another Constitution Bench held in Ch. Subbarao vs. Member, f Election Tribunal, Hyderabad that even with regard to section 81 (3), substantial compliance with the requirement thereof was sufficient and only in cases of total or complete non-compliance with the provisions of section 81 (3), it could be said that the election petition was not one presented in accordance with the provisions of that part of the Act. 4. In FA Sapa vs. Singora & others etc, AIR 1991 SC 1557 , the Apex Court held that a defect in the verification of the petition as well as a defect in the affidavit can be cured and is not fatal to the maintainability of the petition. 4. In FA Sapa vs. Singora & others etc, AIR 1991 SC 1557 , the Apex Court held that a defect in the verification of the petition as well as a defect in the affidavit can be cured and is not fatal to the maintainability of the petition. The above position was reiterated in the case of HD Revanna vs. G. Puttaswamy Gowda, (1999) 2 SCC 217 . 5. In view of the above settled position of law the election petition cannot be thrown out on that count. 6. The election petitioner in his written objection filed in the misc case has submitted "From perusal of the provisions under sections 81, 82, 86 and 117 of the RP Act, 1951 it is clear that an election petition is to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of section 81 or 82 or 117 of the RP Act, 1951 and not on the ground a of non-compliance of the provisions of section 83 of the RP Act, 1951. It is further stated that, the provisions of the CPC for disclosing cause of action as against the election of the respondent No.l is also not required to be stated in the election petition under section 83 of the RP Act, 1951." 7. In the case of Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253, the Apex Court held : "An election petition can be and must be dismissed under the provisions of CPC if the mandatory requirements enjoyed by section 83 to incorporate the material facts and particulars relating to alleged corrupt practice in the election petition are not complied with. The Code of Civil Procedure applies to the trial of an election petition by virtue of section 87 of the Act. Since CPC is applicable, the Court trying the election petition can act in exercise of the powers of the Code including Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 (a). Therefore, that section 83 does not find a place in section 86 of the Act which authorises dismissal of election petitions in certain contingencies does not mean that powers under the CPC cannot be exercised. Therefore, that section 83 does not find a place in section 86 of the Act which authorises dismissal of election petitions in certain contingencies does not mean that powers under the CPC cannot be exercised. An election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the CPC and it is settled law that the omission of a ^ single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and that an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all. The contention that even if the election petition is liable to be dismissed ultimately it should be so dismissed only after recording evidence and not at the threshold is thoroughly misconceived and untenable." 8. The power under section 86 of the Act was examined by the Apex Court again hi the case of Subhas Desai vs. Sharad J. Rao &. others, AIR 1994 SC 2277 . The Apex Court observed : "This provision is not only procedural, but has an object behind it; so that a person declared to have been elected is not dragged to Court to defend and support the validity of his election, on allegations of corrupt practice which are not precise J and details whereof have not been supported by a proper affidavit. Apart from that, unless the corrupt practices are set forth properly in the election petition, the person whose election is challenged is bound to be prejudiced in defending himself of the charges, which have been levelled against him. In view of the repeated pronouncements of this Court, that the charge of corrupt practice is quasi criminal in nature, the person challenging an election on the ground of corrupt practice, cannot take liberty of making any vague or reckless allegations, without taking the responsibility about the correctness thereof. Before the Court proceeds to investigate such allegations, the Court must be satisfied, that the material facts have been stated along with the full particulars of the corrupt practice, alleged by the petitioner, which have been duly supported by an affidavit. Before the Court proceeds to investigate such allegations, the Court must be satisfied, that the material facts have been stated along with the full particulars of the corrupt practice, alleged by the petitioner, which have been duly supported by an affidavit. In cases where the Court finds that neither materials facts have been stated, nor full particulars of the corrupt practice, as required by section 83 have been furnished in the election petition, the election petition can be dismissed, not under section 86, but under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are applicable, read with section 83 (1) of the Act, saying that it does not disclose a cause of action." 9. In HD Revanna (supra), the Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in the case of Balwan Singh and in the case of Raj Narain quoted as below and held: "This Court has repeatedly pointed out the distinction between 'material facts' and 'particulars'. In so far as 'material facts' are concerned this Court has held that they should be fully set out in the election petition said if any fact is not set out, the petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce the evidence relating thereto later, nor will he be permitted to amend the petition after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for an election petition. As regards particulars, the consistent view expressed by this Court is that the petition cannot be dismissed in limine for want of particulars and if the Court finds that particulars are necessary, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to amend the petition and include the particulars. The Constitution Bench in Balwan Singh vs. Lakshmi Narain held that an election petition was not liable to be dismissed in limine merely because full particulars of a corrupt practice alleged were not set out. It was observed that if an objection was taken and the tribunal was of the view that particulars had not been set out, the petitioner had to be given an opportunity to amend or amplify the particulars and that it was only in the event of non-compliance with the order to supply the particulars, the charge could be struck out." In Raj Narain vs. Indira Nehru Gandhi the question was discussed in detail and it was held that pleading need not be construed strictly. It is advantageous to extract the following passage : (SCC pp 856 & 858, para 16 and 19) "While a corrupt practice has got to be strictly proved but from that it does not follow that a pleading in an election proceeding should receive a strict construction. This Court has held that even a defective charge does not vitiate a criminal trial unless it is proved that the same has prejudiced the accused. If a pleading on a reasonable construction could sustain the action, the Court should accept that construction. The Courts are reluctant to frustrate an action on technical grounds. The charge of corrupt practice in an election is a very serious charge. Purity of election is the very essence of real democracy. The charge in question has been denied by the respondent. It has yet to be proved. It may or may not be proved. The allegations made by the appellant may ultimately be proved to be wholly devoid of truth. But the question is whether the appellant should be refused an opportunity to prove his allegations. Should the Court refuse to enquire into those allegations merely because the appellant or someone who prepared his brief did not know the language of the law? We have no hesitation in answering those questions in the negative. The implications of the rule of law are manifold. Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial and for reaching just decision. An action at law should not be equated to a game of chess. Provisions of law are not mere formulae to be observed as rituals. Beneath the words of a provision of law, generally speaking, there lies a juristic principle. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain that principle and implement it. The test in all cases of preliminary objection is to see whether any of the reliefs prayed for could be granted to the petitioner if the averments made in the petition are proved to be true. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the maintainability of the petition has to be upheld. In the present case, we have no doubt that if the allegations contained in the election petition are proved to be true by the petitioner therein, he will be entitled to set the relief set out in the prayer portion. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the maintainability of the petition has to be upheld. In the present case, we have no doubt that if the allegations contained in the election petition are proved to be true by the petitioner therein, he will be entitled to set the relief set out in the prayer portion. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeals and they are hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 5,000 (one set)." 10'. In a recent decision in the case of Ravinder Singh vs. Janmeja Singh & others, (2000) 8 SCC 191 , the Apex Court further explained the requirements of section 83 of the Act as below : "Section 83 of the Act is mandatory in character and requires not only a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice, so as to present a full and complete picture of the action to be detailed in the election petition but under the proviso to section 83 (1) of the Act, the election petition leveling a charge of corrupt practice is required, by law, to be supported by an affidavit in which the election petitioner is obliged to disclose his source of information in respect of the commission of that corrupt practice. The reason for this insistence is obvious. It is necessary for an election petitioner to make such a charge with full responsibility and to prevent any fishing and roving inquiry and save the returned candidate from being taken by surprise. In the absence of proper affidavit, in the prescribed form, filed in support of the corrupt practice of bribery, the allegation pertaining thereto, could not be put to trial - the defect being of a fatal nature." 11. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, let us examine whether the allegations made in the election petition discloses materials for going into trial. 12. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, let us examine whether the allegations made in the election petition discloses materials for going into trial. 12. The allegations made by the election petitioner against the returned candidate, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent' for the purpose of convenience, may be summed up as below : (I) It is stated that the respondent and his election agents used the name of Thangmeiband Kendra Development Voluntary Association and prepared 'Old-Age Pension Scheme Books' and issued the same to senior voters by name, residing in 9 Thangmeiband Assembly Constituency and asked them to collect pension money amounting to Rs.75 (Rupees seventy five) from the residence of respondent No. 1. Thus more than 1000 (one thousand) senior voters were given Old Age Pension. The respondent No.l himself paid and distributed Rs.75 each to the senior voters stating that the money so paid is part of advance Old Age Pension and the same amount would be continued payment each month. Further the respondent No.1 persuaded the electors/senior voters to vote for him in the election to be held on 22.2.2000. (II) The respondent No. 1 employed many election agents and workers and paid Rs. 500 to each of them who could bring a voter to him. After the voter came to the respondent No. 1 with his election agent then the respondent No. 1 induced the voters to touch and take vow by touching his hand on a Gold Ring, Silver Coin and a Bhagavat Gita and asked the voter to vote for him and he (respondent No. 1) paid Rs. 200 to the voter after he has taken the vow. Thus, more than 2000 voters have been thus rewarded to cast their votes in favour of respondent No.l. (III) It is alleged that the respondent No.l spent huge amount of money for publicity, fooding for the workers, daily allowance paid to the campus for the polling campus and there were exceeded amount of Rs. 2 lakhs which were the election expenditure prescribed by the Election Commission. (IV) A polling agent as well as election agent of the respondent No. 1, under the guidance and supervision of the respondent No.l, managed to purchase the voters on payment of money ranging from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1,000 per voter by using marked and cast ballot papers. 2 lakhs which were the election expenditure prescribed by the Election Commission. (IV) A polling agent as well as election agent of the respondent No. 1, under the guidance and supervision of the respondent No.l, managed to purchase the voters on payment of money ranging from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1,000 per voter by using marked and cast ballot papers. (V) It is also alleged that at the time of counting of votes the counting was stopped for certain times and it was resumed without informing the election petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that nowhere in the election petition the petitioner has disclosed the source of information or the name of the witnesses or persons from whom he got the above information. Even the name of persons to whom the amount is alleged to have been paid by the polling and election agents of the respondent No. 1 is not stated. An omnibus statement is made that men, workers, agents, polling agents and election agents of the respondent No. 1 were engaged in bitbing the voters under the supervision of the respondent. Admittedly, the polling was held on 22nd February, 2000 and there was, as many as, 33 polling stations. The petitioner has alleged malpractices in respect of as many as 12 polling stations. Neither the election petitioner nor the respondent could be expected to remain present at the same tune, at the same place in all those polling stations to indulge in witness the alleged activities. As stated above, the allegations must be specific and as such the requirement was to give specific time, place, date. As the persons who alleged to have paid the amount and the name of the persons alleged to have received the amount are not specifically mentioned and since the respondent had number of election agents and polling agents and in the absence of any specific name and time and place, the field is left open for the petitioner to procure the witnesses to depose about the alleged malpractices. It is well settled that the trial of corrupt practice is like a criminal trial. The returned candidate can not be taken by surprise by producing unnamed persons to depose about unknown facts. 14. Moreover, it is alleged that certain acts of bribery took place in the house of the respondent. It is well settled that the trial of corrupt practice is like a criminal trial. The returned candidate can not be taken by surprise by producing unnamed persons to depose about unknown facts. 14. Moreover, it is alleged that certain acts of bribery took place in the house of the respondent. In such a case the petitioner is bound to disclose the source of information or knowledge. This is not the case of the petitioner that he himself was present in the house of the respondent when the alleged bribe was paid. The respondent No. 1 was not expected to bribe the voters hi presence of his rival candidate. At this stage we may recapitulate the observations of the Apex Court in FA Sapa (supra) : "A charge of corrupt practice has a two dimensional effect; its impact on the returned candidates has to be viewed from the point of view of the candidate's future political and public life and from the point of view of the electorate to ensure the purity of the election process. There can, therefore, be no doubt that such an allegation involving corrupt practice must be viewed very seriously and the High Court should ensure compliance with the requirements of section 83 before the parties go to trial. While defective verification of a defective affidavit may not be fatal, the High Court should ensure its compliance before the parties go to trial so that the party required to meet the charge is not taken by surprise at the actual trial, It must also be realised that delay in complying with the requirements of section 83 read with the provisions of the CPC or the omission to disclose the grounds or sources of information, though not fatal would weaken the probative value of the evidence ultimately lead at the actual trial. Therefore, an election petitioner can afford to overlook the requirements of section 83 on paid of weakening the evidence that he may ultimately tender at the actual trial of the election petition. The charge of corrupt practice has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not merely by preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, an election petitioner can afford to overlook the requirements of section 83 on paid of weakening the evidence that he may ultimately tender at the actual trial of the election petition. The charge of corrupt practice has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not merely by preponderance of probabilities. Allegation of corrupt practice being quasi criminal in nature, the failure to supply full particulars at the earliest point of time and to disclose the source of information promptly may have an adverse bearing on the probative value to be attached to the evidence tendered in proof thereof at the trial. Therefore, even though ordinarily a defective verification can be cured and the failure to disclose the grounds or sources of information may not be fatal, failure to place them on record with promptitude may lead the Court in a given case to doubt the veracity of the evidence ultimately tendered. If, however, the affidavit or the schedule or Annexure forms an integral part of the election petition itself, strict compliance would be insisted upon." 15. In RP Moidutty vs. PT Kuju Mohammad & another, (2000) 1 SCC 481 , the Apex Court illustrated the nature of particulars required to be pleaded in support of an averment of corrupt practice by referring to its earlier decision as under : "In Rahim Khan vs. Khurshid Ahmed it was held that it was not the requirement of section 83 and 87 of the Act or Rule 94A and Form 25 thereof to mention the names of the witnesses as a source of information or as a part of the particulars. Every witness need not be mentioned as a source and every source informant need not be examined necessarily. However, omission to do so in a given case may reflect on the credibility of the evidence depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. The Court has to be careful to insist that the means of knowledge are mentioned rights in the beginning to avoid convenient embellishment and irresponsible charges; though, good and reliable testimony should not be stifled nor proof of corrupt practices thwarted by technicalities of procedure. In Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi the corrupt practice alleged was referable to the returned candidate and as committed at the meetings organised during the election campaign. In Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi the corrupt practice alleged was referable to the returned candidate and as committed at the meetings organised during the election campaign. This Court held that dates and particulars of the meetings should be given so as to eliminate the possibility that witness could be procured later on for adducing evidence. In the context of the charge of corrupt practices referable to distribution of certain pamphlets when, where and to whom they were distributed and in whose presence. This Court further observed that no amount of evidence could cure the basic defect in the pleadings." 16. Coming to the facts of the present case, we find that the election petition is bereft of material facts as regards the allegation of corrupt practice allegedly indulged by the respondent. Merely stating that the respondents and his election agents and polling agents managed to purchase voters does not meet the requirement of section 83 of the Act. It might not have been possible to name all the persons who received the money or all the poling agents or election agents who paid the money, petitioner was however required to mention the name of few persons who allegedly indulged in the above malpractices. 17. As regards the statement that one ten rupee note was found inside the ballot box from which inference can be drawn that the respondent had purchased vote, less said is better; there is no allegation that the said ten rupee note was placed at the ballot box by the respondent or his agents. In this case around 22,000 persons had cast their votes and anyone of them could have slipped the ten rupee note. The respondents have also submitted that there is no averments by the election petitioner that the alleged corrupt practice has materially affected or would have materially affected the election results. In support of the 'above submission, learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Charan Das vs. Surinder Kumar & others, 1995 Suppl (3) SCC 318. 18. As regards the counting of votes, the allegation is in Para XIV and XVI which is quoted below : "That, in the above situation no counting of votes was held in respect of polling stations No.9/29 to 9/33 of Thangmeiband Assembly Constituency and this fact was known to all. 18. As regards the counting of votes, the allegation is in Para XIV and XVI which is quoted below : "That, in the above situation no counting of votes was held in respect of polling stations No.9/29 to 9/33 of Thangmeiband Assembly Constituency and this fact was known to all. Therefore, the counting of votes in respect of 9 Thangmeiband Assembly Constituency was completely stopped on 25.2.2000. That, since no counting of votes was held in respect of polling station No.9/29 to 9/33 because of the tearing and damaging of ballot papers before counting had taken place as stated above there was no ballot papers available for counting and no declaration can be made on the basis of such damaged ballot papers without counting but for reasons best known to the RO. The distributed/accounted the votes in favour of the contesting candidates lump sum beyond his jurisdiction and by adopting unheard practice the result of the election was declared in favour of respondent No.l." 19. In Daulat Ram vs. Anand Sharma, AIR 1984 SC 621 , the Apex Court laid down that the following particulars are essential for pleadings in the case of corrupt practice. "(1) Direct and detailed nature of corrupt practice as defined in the Act. (2) Details of every important particular must be stated giving the time, place, names of persons use of words and expressions, etc. (3) It must clearly appear from the allegations that the corrupt practices alleged were indulged in by (a) the candidate himself (b) his authorised election agent or any other person with his express or implied consent." 20. On reading of the election petition and from our foregoing discussion it is seen that the petitioner has made some vague and. general allegations stating that election agents and workers under the supervision of the respondent has done this or that without naming any of the election agents, polling agents or any person who has allegedly indulged in corrupt practice or who are the beneficiary of the same. The election petition definitely suffers from the infirmity of lacking in material facts. A submission was made that the petitioner may be directed or given an opportunity to provide the above particulars. The election petition definitely suffers from the infirmity of lacking in material facts. A submission was made that the petitioner may be directed or given an opportunity to provide the above particulars. In the case of Bashir Musa Patel vs. Satyawan Ganpat Jawkar & others, AIR 1997 SC 1311 , the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had directed the election petitioner to give the particulars and the names of the persons who were not allowed to cast their votes, the Apex Court held that the directions were uncalled for as it would amount to fill in the gap which would gravely prejudice the respondents. 21. As the election petition in the instant case is bereft of the most vital and essential facts, considering the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the election petition deserves to be dismissed summarily, which I do hereby. The misc case stands allowed.