Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision under Section 26 (2) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short the Act of 1961) is directed against the judgment dated 31-10-2001 passed by First Additional District Judge, Neemuch in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/2000. ( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that the present applicant/respon dent was elected as President, Nagar Panchayat, Jawad in a direct election held on 26-12-1999; the counting of votes was held on 28-12-1999 which was notified on 3-1-2000. The respondent who was also one of the voters in the said election has filed an election petition under Section 20 of the Act of 1961 challenging the election of the applicant as illegal and void on the ground of corrupt practice. The reply to the said petition was filed by the applicant, issues were framed, evidence was recorded and after hearing, the learned ADJ, neemuch allowed the election petition by order dated 31-10-2001 and quashed the election of the applicant as President of Nagar Panchayat, Jawad against which the applicant has filed this revision. ( 3. ) MAINLY it was stated in the original petition that in the election of the President of Nagar Panchayat the political parties have not participated whereas the election was held on non-political basis in which all the candidates were independent. It was further alleged that the applicant who was a returned candidate has adopted corrupt practices as has been defined under Section 28 of the Act of 1961. It was further alleged in the petition that between 23-12-1999 and 25-12-1999, the applicant/respondent personally went into all the wards of Jawad Nagar Panchayat along with Ghanshyam Patidar, a Minister in the State Cabinet, and gave temptation and appeasement that for the development of the Jawad Nagar Panchayat he will obtain special sanctions with the help of the State Government and that he shall also generate special funds for employment. The applicant/respondent is also alleged to have made an appeal that as he belongs to Dhakad Caste and around 2000 voters of this dhakad caste are living in the Nagar Panchayat Area, he would see that land is allotted for constructing a Dharmashala in the name of Dhakad community. The applicant/respondent is also alleged to have made an appeal that as he belongs to Dhakad Caste and around 2000 voters of this dhakad caste are living in the Nagar Panchayat Area, he would see that land is allotted for constructing a Dharmashala in the name of Dhakad community. It was further alleged that he made a systematic appeal to the members of the dhakad caste that he would legalise their encroachment which they have already made over a piece of land for construction of Dharmashala and that he would also see that the unemployed youth of Dhakad Samaj shall be employed. ( 4. ) IT was further alleged to have been appealed that it is the duty of every member of the Dhakad caste to uphold the dignity of the member of his caste by getting him elected as President of Jawad Nagar Panchayat and if he looses the election, it will be a stigma to all the members of the Dhakad community. It was further alleged in the petition that he published an election manifesto, distributed the same himself and in which he not only gave temptation and appeasement, but also made undue influence and whatever declarations made by him in the election manifesto were in the nature of corrupt practices. It was also stated in the petition that though the election was not held on political basis, the applicant/respondent was shown to be the candidate having the support of Congress (I) and various pamphlets, news items and posters were published in which photographs of all the top leaders of the party were published. It was further alleged in the petition that on 20-12-1999 at about 8 A. M. in Ward No. 7, he gave an allurement to the members of the Teli caste that if the applicant/respondent is got elected as President of Nagar panchayat, Jawad, he would construct approach-stairs towards the Savalia mandir from the side of Telio Ki Ghati and also from the funds of Nagar panchayat itself which was also a part of the election manifesto and also that influenced them unduly by saying that if they will not vote for him and on loosing election they would be liable to commit sin. It was further alleged in the petition that in all the Wards pamphlets were distributed on which photographs of Shri Ghanshyam Patidar, the Congress Minister, were printed and on some of the pamphlets the photographs of some of the important leaders of Congress (I) were also published appealing that the petitioner is contesting the election with the support of the Congress (I ). Therefore, it was alleged that he fought the election on political basis. It was further alleged that the posters published and distributed during campaign missing the name of printers and publishers and that the day to day expenditure incurred during campaign was not maintained nor the same was produced in prescribed proforma along with vouchers which also would amount to corrupt practice and violation of established election norms. It was thus alleged that since the applicant/respondent made undue influence over the voters, made systematic appeal on the basis of caste, community and religion, his election as President of Nagar Panchayat deserves to be set aside. ( 5. ) IN reply the defendant denied all the allegations levelled against him and submitted that neither he adopted any corrupt practice nor made any undue influence nor made any systematic appeal for seeking vote on the basis of caste, community or religion nor gave any temptation or appeasement to the voters either for getting a package for the development of the Nagar panchayat from the Government nor appealed to the members of the Dhakad community nor gave any threat to the members of the Teli Samaj. He also denied the allegations that any posters, pamphlets were published or advertisements were issued without the publication of the name of printer or publisher. He also denied the allegation about not maintaining the day to day accounts of the election expenditure as per rules on the prescribed proforma. He also denied any kind of corrupt practice by him for getting him elected in the election. He stated that as Shri Ghanshyam Patidar, State Cabinet Minister, is an MLA from Jawad constituency he came for public contact in his favour and this does not come within the purview of any corrupt practice. It was further denied that any allurement was given to the voters for providing employment to them or for the development of the Nagar Panchayat with the help of the Government or through State Minister Shri Ghanshyam Patidar. It was further denied that any allurement was given to the voters for providing employment to them or for the development of the Nagar Panchayat with the help of the Government or through State Minister Shri Ghanshyam Patidar. It was stated in the reply in the defendant/applicant that he was the President of the Nagar Panchayat for the last five years and he has done various activities for the development of the area. It was further denied that any promise was made by him to the members of the Dhakad community for the allotment of land for construction of Dharmashala or for protection or regularisation of their encroachment. It was also denied that he appealed for vote on the basis of caste, religion or community or gave any temptation for construction of stairs to Sanvaliaji temple from Telio Ki Ghati. ( 6. ) ON the basis of the allegations and its reply, issues were framed and the evidence of the parties was recorded by the Trial Court. Respondent/petitioner filed documents which are the pamphlets, copy of the posters and news paper cuttings from Ex. P-2 to P-15. Ex. P-16 to P-18 are the copies of declaration and statement regarding election expenses. Copies of the photographs of Sanvaliaji temple are Ex. D-l and D-2. Ex. D-3 to D-6 are the documents filed by the petitioner. Respondent/petitioner examined himself as (P. W. 1) and Rameshwar (P. W. 2), who is one of the members of the Dhakad samaj; Om Kavishar (P. W. 3), one of the voter in the Jawad constituency, dashrat (P. W. 4), a resident of Ward No. 7 and a member of Teli caste; Prakash sen (P. W. 5), who is an elected Councillor from Ward No. 7; Motilal (P. W. 6), who is also a voter and one of the members of Dhakad caste; Radheshyam (P. W. 7), another voter and another member of Dhakad caste; and Rameshwar teylor (P. W. 8), who was an employee working as Assistant Grade-II in the election office at Neemuch. Respondent/applicant examined himself as D. W. 1 and Narendrakumar Soliwal as D. W. 2, one of the voters of the Jawad constituency. ( 7. ) THE Trial Court has set aside the election of the applicant/ respondent on the ground that he committed corrupt practice as defined under sub-sections (i), (ii), (iii) and (vii) of Section 28 of the Act of 1961. ( 7. ) THE Trial Court has set aside the election of the applicant/ respondent on the ground that he committed corrupt practice as defined under sub-sections (i), (ii), (iii) and (vii) of Section 28 of the Act of 1961. Sub-section (i) is about "bribery" as defined in clause (1) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; sub-section (ii) is about undue influence as defined in clause (2) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act; sub-clause (iii) is about the systematic appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, to vote or refrain from voting on grounds of caste, race, community or religion or the use of or appeal to, religions symbols, or the use of or appeal to, national symbol, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidates election; and also sub-clause (vii) prohibits the issuance of any circular, placard or poster having a reference to the election or selection which does not bear the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof. The election is also set aside on the ground of non-keeping the account of day to day expenditure of the election in violation of the provisions of Section 32-A of the Act of 1961 and also on the basis of the admission about non-showing the expenditure of publication of advertisements in the accounts in cross- examination. ( 8. ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the election petition was itself liable to be dismissed on the ground that there are no proper pleadings with specific particulars about the allegations of corrupt practice and the Court has also not framed the proper issues on each corrupt practice and has also not properly appreciated the evidence with regard to the allegations. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He has also cited various decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court on the pleadings and proof of corrupt practice. In reply the Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that in revision the scope of scrutiny of evidence is very little and limited. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He has also cited various decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court on the pleadings and proof of corrupt practice. In reply the Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that in revision the scope of scrutiny of evidence is very little and limited. Learned Counsel also cited various decisions on this point and further submitted that on the question of not showing the expenditure of publication of advertisements in the news paper there is an admission by the applicant on that count and on that ground alone the election of the applicant/respondent was liable to be set aside and, thus, the Court has rightly set aside the same and prayed for dismissal of this revision. ( 9. ) AFTER careful examination of the pleadings, material and issues on record, I find that the learned Trial Court has wrongly set aside the election on the ground of corrupt practices without framing proper issues. Though the court has set aside the election on the ground of sub-section (i) of Section 28, which is about bribery, but I found that on the question of bribery neither there are pleadings nor the Court has framed any issue nor recorded evidence nor the parties have led any evidence, but the Trial Court has found this allegation proved. According to this Court, the Trial Court was wrong in setting aside the election on the ground of bribery. It is true that the Trial Court has only framed general issues and has not framed specific issues on each allegation. The Trial court has also set aside the election on the ground of undue influence on the voters and also on the ground that the appellant made systematic appeal on the ground of caste, race, community and religion and has also found that the circulars, posters and placards which were distributed does not bear the name and particulars of the printer and publisher. In fact, for all these allegations the Court ought to have framed separate and specific issues on each allegation. The Court has also set aside the election on the ground of non- keeping of account of the day to day expenses and also not filing the proper return. In fact, for all these allegations the Court ought to have framed separate and specific issues on each allegation. The Court has also set aside the election on the ground of non- keeping of account of the day to day expenses and also not filing the proper return. Though the Court has framed an issue that whether the accounts were kept as per the proforma prescribed and has not submitted the same but Court has not framed separate issues on two separate allegations, one is about non-maintaining the day to day account and also not submitting the same in proforma and secondly spending the money more than the prescribed limit and also on the ground that the appellant has not included some of the expenses incurred by him in the day to day account for which the allegation is that precisely this has been admitted by the applicant. ( 10. ) IN election petitions what should be the nature of trial, how issues should be framed, whether framing of issues is an important part of the trial and whether on each corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner and denied by the defendant, should be the subject-matter of distinct issue or not. While i was examining the question of non framing of issues I found that recently in the case of Makhan Lai Bangal Vs. Manas Bhunia and others, (2001) 2 SCC 652 , the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court and Honble Shri Lahoti, j. , speaking for the Bench has answered the question and ruled as under:-An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and departures therefrom. The date fixed for settlement of issues is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing. The real dispute between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is narrowed and the concave mirror held by the court reflecting the pleadings of the parties pinpoints into issues, the disputes on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. The correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. The scheme of Order 14 of the Code of Civil procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other should form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on the Court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their Counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the Counsel does not be little the primary obligation cast on the Court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact and the Court may at once pronounce the judgment. The parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence shall confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The objection of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceedings issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided. The objection of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceedings issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided. In the case at hand, each one of the corrupt practices alleged by the petitioner and denied by the defendant, should have formed the subject-matter of a distinct issue sufficiently expressive of the material proposition of fact and of law arising from the pleadings. Failure to do so has resulted in an utter confusion prevailing throughout the trial and also in the judgment of the high Court as was demonstrated by the learned Counsel for the appellant during the hearing of the appeal attacking the findings arrived at by High Court. On some of the points in dispute the high Court has observed that no proof of the said fact (alleged in the petition) was necessary so far as the petitioner is concerned because there was no specific denial of the allegations made or as there was no answer by the defendant to the allegations of the petitioner on points of substance. The contradiction with which the trial and the judgment suffer is writ large. If a material proposition of fact or law alleged in the petition was not denied or was not specifically denied in the written statement within the meaning of Rule 5 of Order 8, CPC and such tenor of the written statement had persuaded the learned designated election judge in forming an opinion (belatedly while writing the judgment) that there was an admission by necessary implication for want of denial or specific denial then there was no need of framing an issue and there was no need for recording of evidence on those issues. Valuable time of the Court would have been saved from being wasted in recording evidence on such averments in pleadings as were not in issue for want of traverse, it if was so. ( 11. ) AFTER considering the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case it is clear that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled and has virtually issued guidelines that how and in what manner the election petition should be tried and how issues should be framed. ( 11. ) AFTER considering the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case it is clear that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled and has virtually issued guidelines that how and in what manner the election petition should be tried and how issues should be framed. I considered this case in the light of the aforesaid decision and find that the Trial Court has committed an illegality in not framing proper issues and not conducting the trial as per the sufficiently expressive distinct issues on the material proposition of fact and of law arising from the pleadings. In fact, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the supreme Court the Trial Court should have framed separate issues on all the corrupt practices such as undue influence on the voters on the basis of caste and religion the Court ought to have framed separate issues on the question of appeal to voters for constructing Dharmashala to the Dhakad community and also regularising their encroachment and also on the question of appealing the voters on the ground of construction of stairs for approaching the Savalia temple from Telio Ki Ghati. The Court ought to have framed separate issues on the question of distribution of election material without disclosing the name of printer and publisher of the pamphlets. It was also the duty of the Trial court to frame separate issues on all the three pleadings under Section 32-A on the question of not maintaining day to day expenses and also on the question of spending money beyond the ceiling limit and also not including the particular amount spent on publication of advertisements in the news paper and thereafter should have recorded evidence and findings thereon. ( 12. ) IN a series of judgments, the Supreme Court has consistently held that an allegation of corrupt practice must be proved as strictly as a criminal charge and the principle of preponderance of probabilities would not apply to corrupt practices. The Supreme Court has held that:- "a charge of corrupt practice is substantially akin to a criminal charge. The commission of a corrupt practice entails serious panel consequences. It not only vitiates the election of the candidate concerned but also this disqualifies him from taking part in elections for a considerably long time. The Supreme Court has held that:- "a charge of corrupt practice is substantially akin to a criminal charge. The commission of a corrupt practice entails serious panel consequences. It not only vitiates the election of the candidate concerned but also this disqualifies him from taking part in elections for a considerably long time. Thus, the trial of an election being in the nature of an accusation, bearing the indelible stamp of quasi-criminal action, the standard of proof is the same as in a criminal trial. Just as in a criminal case, so in an election petition, the respondent against whom the charge of corrupt practice is levelled, is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. A grave and heavy onus, therefore, rests on the accuser to establish each and every ingredient of the charge by clear, unequivocal and unimpeachable evidence beyond reasonable doubt. A charge of corrupt practice can not be established by a mere balance of probabilities, and, if, after giving due consideration and effect to the totality of the evidence and circumstances of the case, the mind of the Court is left rocking with reasonable doubt not being the doubt of a mind, fickle or vacilating mind as to the verasity of the charge, it must hold the same as not proved. A Court embarking upon an application of evidence, without this rudder and compass, is apt to find itself at sea, mistaking every flotsam for shore, suspicion for proof and illusion for reality. " ( 13. ) IN the light of the aforesaid well settled law in cases of election and also in cases of corrupt practice alleged against a returned candidate, it is necessary that the allegations should be specific and evidence on each allegation should be proved specifically. Therefore, framing of necessary issues is necessary ingredient without which neither a proper allegation can be established nor evidence can be led and looked into. ( 14. ) IN this case too for non-framing of proper issues by the Trial court, the parties were confused on the question of leading proper evidence. The Trial Court too was also confused and has not recorded proper findings. After appreciating the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent/ petitioner was confused on the question of producing proper evidence and has not led proper evidence in the case. The Trial Court too was also confused and has not recorded proper findings. After appreciating the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent/ petitioner was confused on the question of producing proper evidence and has not led proper evidence in the case. On perusal of the examination-in-chief of sashikant (P. W. 1), I find that he had not stated anything on the question of non-inclusion of expenditure on publication of advertisements in the news paper for which he had strongly placed reliance on the admission of the applicant defendant. This may be because of utter confusion in leading the evidence as proper issues were nor framed by the Trial Court and it was not clear to the parties that on what issues what evidence was required to be produced. After examination of the evidence and material on record, it appears that the failure to do so has resulted an utter confusion and the Trial court could also not tie down the evidence on the particular questions. Thus, according to me it is fatal to the trial. At this stage, it would not be proper to discuss the evidence available on record and to form any opinion on the existing issues or to record any finding about the same as it may get prejudiced the case of the parties before the Trial Court. In view of the aforesaid decision of the supreme Court in the case of Makhan Lai Bangal (supra) and also in the interests of justice, it would be more proper to remand the case to the Trial court for framing proper issues and to record findings on all such issues. ( 15. ) ON the foregoing discussions, it inevitably follows that the decision of the Court below is contrary to law as the Trial Court has not adopted proper procedure, framed proper issues and recorded proper evidence and findings about the corrupt practices. Consequently, this revision is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Trial Court for framing necessary issues and to record evidence, if necessary, and thereafter to record findings on all such issues. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall record the finding on each of these issues independently after appreciating the existing evidence, documents and admissions and also after recording additional evidence, if produced by the parties. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall record the finding on each of these issues independently after appreciating the existing evidence, documents and admissions and also after recording additional evidence, if produced by the parties. The parties shall also be at liberty to adduce additional evidence. The Trial Court shall complete this exercise within a period of six months. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 3-2-2003. Parties shall also bear their own costs of this revision petition. Civil Revision allowed.