Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2507 (PNJ)

Jai Parkash v. Bal Mukand

2006-07-05

J.S.NARANG

body2006
Judgment J.S.NARANG, J. 1. This judgment would dispose of two FAOs bearing No.12 and 499 of 2005, as the same is the result of one and the same election of councilor of Municipal Council and as such involve the common question of law and facts. The facts are being taken from FAO No.12 of 2005. The order dated December 14, 2004, passed by the Election tribunal upon the election petition presented under Sec.76 read with sections 89 and 90 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with rules 87,88 and 89 of the punjab Municipal Election Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"),has been made the subject matter of challenge. 2. The elections to the Municipal Council, Mandi Gobindgarh were held on March 9, 2003. The candidates filed their nominations for contesting the elections. As per respondent No.1, the contest was between the appellant himself i. e. Jai Parkash son of Surjit Singh and Balmukand son of Shri Muni Lal. Balmukand contested as a candidate of Bhartiya Janta party and Jai Parkash contested as nominee candidate of Congress party. Both had contested from ward No.18 of Municipal Council, Gobindgarh. Jai parkash had been declared elected in the aforesaid election as a Municipal councilor. Balmukand was not satisfied with the election and the same has been challenged under the aforesaid provisions upon the grounds spelt out in para 4 of the petition. 3. The election petition had been contested by Jai Parkash by way of submitting detailed written statement to the averments made in the election petition. The allegations made in para 4 of the petition have been refuted accordingly. Respondents No.3 and 4 also submitted written statement by making the submissions, with a prayer that the petition be dismissed. The Presiding Officer had also been impleaded as respondent no.5, who has also submitted written statement with a prayer that the petition be dismissed. Similarly, the Returning Officer, has also been impleaded as respondent No.6, who has also submitted written statement with a prayer that the petition be dismissed. Replications to the written statement of respondent No.1 as also all other respondents have been filed. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues had been framed: 1. Whether there was any improper reception of votes in the election held on 9.3.2003, in favour of respondent No1 ? opp 2. Replications to the written statement of respondent No.1 as also all other respondents have been filed. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues had been framed: 1. Whether there was any improper reception of votes in the election held on 9.3.2003, in favour of respondent No1 ? opp 2. Whether there was any improper refusal of votes in the election held on 9.3.2003, within the meaning of section 89 (d) (iii) OPP 3. Whether the election result of the petitioner has been materially affected if any improper reception or refusal of votes is proved or not OPP 4. Whether the respondent No.1 has indulged in corrupt practices within the meaning of Sec.108 (1) (A) (b) (ii) OPP 5. Whether the election of respondent No.1 is liable to be declared void and is liable to be set aside or not ?opp 6. Whether respondent No.1 is liable to be disqualified ? opp 7. Whether the petition is time barred OPR 8. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form OPR 9. Relief. 4. The parties led their respective evidence in support of their pleas and also in support and or against the respective issues. The Tribunal has returned finding on issues No.1,2,3 and 9 against the petitioner and issues No.4,5,6,7, and 8 against the elected candidate respondent-appellant. Pursuant to the aforesaid finding, respondent-appellant has been held guilty of committing corrupt practice within the meaning of section 108 (1) (A) (b) and (ii) of the Act. Further the respondent-appellant has been disqualified under Sec.11-B for being chosen a Councilor of the Municipality, for a period of six years from the date of the order. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal, the same has been challenged by way of present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has not appraised the evidence in the correct perspective and that the pivotal witnesses who have appeared, their evidence has not been examined correctly in support of the grounds set out for challenging the election. It has been contended that the election petition had not been properly verified inasmuch as an affidavit required in support thereof, has not been submitted in terms of the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been contended that the election petition had not been properly verified inasmuch as an affidavit required in support thereof, has not been submitted in terms of the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The verification of the paras have not been made in accordance with law, as such, pleadings containing the allegations of corruption are not sustainable under law. The election petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid. 6. Further, the affidavit in support of the corrupt practices alleged has also not been made in accordance with law and rather there is a contradiction vis-a-vis the averments contained in the election petition and the affidavit dated February 13, 2004. The allegations of corruption have been made in para 4 sub para 15 to 20 and the same have been verified as based on the information provided by Rajinder Singh son of Munshi Singh and Balbir Singh son of Ram Singh of Dera Santa. Whereas, in the affidavit supporting the averments in the election petition are stated to be true to the knowledge of the petitioner. This fact has been completely ignored by the Tribunal. The petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 7. It is the case of the appellant that these two persons were suppliers of the information to the election petitioner, whereas, the testimonies of both the witnesses were partisan and, therefore, could not be relied upon. Both the witnesses have admitted in cross examination that they belong to Shiromani Akali Dal and have been previously supporting the election petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the property/land and the gurudwara situated therein vested in the SGPC. The allegation that the elected candidate financed construction of streets etc. in that area, cannot be believed. SGPC itself is flush with money, therefore, no funds were required by the Dera for constructions of streets etc. The alleged allegations of corrupt practices have been accepted only on the basis of probabilities whereas the same have not been proved like a criminal charge ,as is required to be done under the provisions and the law laid down by the Courts. 8. Further, the argument is that the election petition does not disclose a complete cause of action, lacks the disclosure of material facts and full particulars. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Further, the argument is that the election petition does not disclose a complete cause of action, lacks the disclosure of material facts and full particulars. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn my attention to the specific pleading of the petitioner as averred in para 4 (iii) at page 25 of the paper book. The relevant portion reads as under: " The election of respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside and to be declared void on this ground alone without there being material effect as the corrupt practice committed by respondent No.1 falls within the ambit of Sec.108 (1) (A) (b) (ii) and is squarely covered u/s 89 (1) (b), irrespective of any material effect on the result of the election of the petitioner although the result of the election of the petitioner has actually been materially effected but for the purpose of Sec.89 (1) (b), it is not to be seen. " 9. He has also drawn my attention to the averments contained in para 4 (xx) of the paper book at page 31 wherein it has been averred that the respondent-appellant got about 40 votes of the electors from the Dera in question alone. He has also drawn my attention to the facts stated in the election petition specifically averred in para 4 (vii) and (viii) that the proprietors of the village had constructed a Gurudwara on the land described as Mustarka Malkan and the control of the Gurudwara was ultimately handed over to SGPC along with the land including the one held by Dera Santan. A dispute had arisen between the proprietors and the residents of the Dera and a civil suit was instituted by the proprietors for possession of the land in question measuring 3 Bighas 12 Biaswas. The averment has also been made that the Dera had demanded from the municipal Council, construction of drains, paving of streets, supply of drainage and water system. However, the Municipal Council was reluctant to do so considering that the land in question vested in the SGPC and was not the land of the Municipal Council even when the village Kukar Majra fell within the Municipal Limits of Gobindgarh and the Gram Panchayat kukar Majra ceased to exist. However, the Municipal Council was reluctant to do so considering that the land in question vested in the SGPC and was not the land of the Municipal Council even when the village Kukar Majra fell within the Municipal Limits of Gobindgarh and the Gram Panchayat kukar Majra ceased to exist. As a result thereof, the assets of the Gram panchayat vested in the Municipal Council as per law except the land belonging to the Gurdwara Sahib including the land in possession of Dera santan. He has also drawn my attention to the averments contained in para 4 (xix) wherein it has been averred that Bal Mukand election-petitioner, had been consecutively elected three times from ward No.18. However, has admitted that he was elected as President of the Municipal Council in the elections held in 1998 but had to relinquish the office on account of illegal "no Confidence Motion" moved for political reasons. Further reference has been made to the averments contained in paras 4 (xv) to (sub para (xx)which read as under: " (xv) That on 3.3.2003, respondent No.1 went to Dera santan at about 10.00 A. M and met among others Rajinder singh @ Kala Singh son of Munshi Singh and Balbir Singh son of Ram Singh of Dera Santan. He asked them to cast their votes for him but they told him the position of the Dera which was not having any street, drain, disposal, sewage or water supply from the Municipal Council. (xvi) That the respondent No.1 wanted to talk to above said persons i. e. Rajinder Singh and Balbir Singh privately who took him to the house of Balbir Singh along with 2-3 other votes of the Dera. The respondent No.1 offered to spend from his pocket and promised to get four streets, alongwith drains of both sides, thereof, a tubewell for water supply, a disposal place, in case the electors of the Dera voted for him in the municipal election. On the offer and promise given by respondent No.1, the electors of the Dera had a separate meeting and decided to vote for respondent No.1 in lieu of a offer of bribery and promise rendered by respondent No.1. On the offer and promise given by respondent No.1, the electors of the Dera had a separate meeting and decided to vote for respondent No.1 in lieu of a offer of bribery and promise rendered by respondent No.1. (xvii) That on 4.3.2003 at about 10.00 A. M. Respondent no.1 paid Rs.28000/- to Sraj Mohammad, Amloh Road, a supplier of bricks for supply of bricks at Dera Santan Ward no.18 for the construction of private owned streets and drains. So far as the petitioner knows, the supplier issued a receipt also after receiving the payment from the respondent No.1, in the name of Ram Singh son of Sewa Dass who is the eldest of the dera inmates and is generally known as the head of the Dera inmates. (xviii ). That similarly on the same date i. e.4.3.2003, respondent No.1 paid ars.7975/- to an employee of singla Marbles Store who is also engaged in the supply of cement, earth for filling purposes, sand etc. This amount also was paid in the presence of Dera electors namely Rajinder singh and Balbir Singh by respondent No.1. This shopkeeper also issued a slip in the name of Ram Singh because respondent No.1 did not want his name to be entered in the papers or any regular bill to be issued for the purpose. (xix) That as a result of the offer and promise, mentioned above, three streets in the Dera on private land have been constructed at the cost incurred by the respondent No.1, as a result of promise to get votes. The streets got constructedby respondent No.1 are being shown in the attached site plan as `a to `b, C` to `d, `e to `f. the cost of labour, sand, gravel and the payment to the contractor all has been made by respondent No.1 and according to the estimation of the petitioner, approximately Rs.62,000/- have been spent by respondent No.1 on the construction of three streets, drains and disposal place. (xx) That all this has been done by respondent No.1, as stated in earlier paragraphs to allure the electors and to prevail upon them to cast their votes in his favour and as a result of this illegal act, corrupt practice and the bribery prohibited by law, the respondent No.1 has got about 40 votes of the electors from this Dera alone. " 10. " 10. He has brought to my notice the verification appended to the election petition, which reads as under: " verification verified that the contents of para 1 to 4 and para no.4 (vi) to (xiv) and para No. (xxi) to (xxxviii) are true to my personal information and contents of para (xv) to (xx) are based on information provided to me by Rajinder Singh son of munshi Singh and Balbir Singh son of Ram Singh of Dera santan, Ward No.18, Mandi Gobindgarh. The contents of para 4 (i) to (v) are verified to be correct, as per legal advice tendered to me which I believe to be correct. All the paragraphs no.1 to 4 and (i) to (xxx viii) are verified to be correct and nothing has been concealed and no information has been withheld. " 11. The perusal of the above shows that the averments contained in para 4 (xv) to (xx) are based on information provided to the petitioner in the election petition by Rajinder Singh son of Munshi Singh and Balbir singh son of Ram Singh of Dera Santan. Thus, the averments contained in the aforesaid paras depended primarily on the statement of Rajinder Singh and Balbir Singh. 12. It was required to be seen to what extent the reliance upon the statement of such witnesses could be relied upon for opining that the elected candidate indulged into corrupt practices. Balbir Singh appeared as PW2 and Rajinder Singh has appeared as PW4. Balbir Singh PW2 has tendered his affidavit dated 23.9.2003 as examination-in-chief. It has been averred in para 9, that the elected candidate had come to them on March 3, 2003 and had promised that for the residents of dera, the drainage shall be taken care of and a tubewell shall also be installed at his own expense but for this the residents of the Dera should support him. On this statement, the residents had agreed to vote for him. Further, in para 10 of the affidavit, it has been stated that on March 4, 2003, the elected candidate had given a sum of Rs.28,000/- to the supplier Sraj Mohd, who is residing at Amloh Road. He has also stated that this money was given to Sraj Mohd. at his shop and upon obtaining the amount, a receipt was issued and the same was delivered to Balbir Singh. 13. He has also stated that this money was given to Sraj Mohd. at his shop and upon obtaining the amount, a receipt was issued and the same was delivered to Balbir Singh. 13. This receipt indicated the name of Ram Singh son of Sewa Dass and the supplier had been asked to deliver the goods at the Dera. He has also averred that this writing was made in his presence and also in the presence of Rajinder Singh. He has also averred in para 11 that the elected candidate had given another sum of Rs.7975/- to Shri Vikas Garg proprietor of Singla marble Store, for supplying 25 cement bags and 15 trips of the trolley containing earth. Again on the receipt name of Ram Singh had been mentioned and the aforesaid material was delivered at the Dera. It has also been stated that the receipt was executed in front of him and also Rajinder singh. He has also stated that by using the aforesaid material the work was commenced and for the labour work a sum of Rs.10,500/- had been given by the elected candidate to the contractors. It is also stated that lot many votes had been casted in favour of Jai Parkash on March 9, 2003 on the eve of election of Municipal Council, by the residents of the Dera inclusive of his vote, in return of the construction of the streets and drainage at the Dera. It has also been stated that, Jai Parkash, as per his promise, continued to finance the work of construction of street and the drainages and till now he has spent around Rs.62000/-. The witness had been cross examined by the counsel for the appellant. He has stated that there are about 25-30 houses in the concerned area and that the number of votes is approximately 60-65. He has also admitted that there is no elected body of the Sant Sect nor he himself is any office bearer. He has also admitted that all the 25-35 houses belong to the persons, who are active Akali members. He has also further admitted that Bal Mukand had contested the election three times earlier on the Bhartiya Janta Party ticket and every time he was supported by him and their Sant Sect and that all of them voted for him except in the present election under challenge. He has also further admitted that Bal Mukand had contested the election three times earlier on the Bhartiya Janta Party ticket and every time he was supported by him and their Sant Sect and that all of them voted for him except in the present election under challenge. He has also stated that their relations had become strained with Bal Mukand. However, now the relations are cordial. He has denied that he is aware as to by how many votes Bal Mukand lost the election. He has also stated that he had a pain and grapewines against Jai parkash as he had left the construction work of the street incomplete. He has also admitted that the construction work was started in the area after the election results had been declared in favour of Jai Parkash. He has also mentioned that Premi Thekedar had been engaged for carrying out the work, who himself is a mason as well. He has also stated that Premi Thekedar was paid but no receipt had been obtained from him for such payment. However, he was unable to give the total number of bricks supplied or any approximation thereof nor was able to give the description of the mark of the brick kiln from where the bricks were allegedly purchased nor he has given the name of the persons who had transported the bricks to the area. He was also unable to give the name of the person from whom the rough estimate was got prepared. He has also stated that Jai Parkash had asked them not to use his name on the receipt regarding purchase of the material.1however, upon perusal of the receipt Ex. P3 and P4,the name of Jai Parkash finds mention. He could not give any plausible reasons for mentioning of the name of Jai Parkash. He has also disclosed that the talk for procuring the votes of Sant Sect and of the Dera had transpired with Ram Singh and that construction work of the drainage and the street took place in presence of Rajinder Singh, Karamjit Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Sharanjit Singh. Learned counsel has further pointed out the statement of rajinder Singh who has appeared as PW4. He has reiterated what had been stated by Balbir Singh in his affidavit and has tendered the same as his examination-in-chief. Learned counsel has further pointed out the statement of rajinder Singh who has appeared as PW4. He has reiterated what had been stated by Balbir Singh in his affidavit and has tendered the same as his examination-in-chief. In the cross examination he has categorically admitted that they all helped Bal Mukand in the previous two elections and that the help was given openly. He has admitted that Bal Mukand used to visit the Dera and they also used to visit him frequently whenever the need arose. He has further corroborated that the residents of the Dera had very thick and cordial relations with Bal Mukand. The contention is that if the relations of the residents of the area are so thick with Bal Mukand, in the first instance they would not retract and cast vote in favour of Jai Parkash. Secondly, the statements made by Balbir Singh and Rajinder Singh disclosed the facts which are self serving statements and self serving documents have been created. If for argument sake, Jai Parkash had given money, he would not obtain receipt to leave evidence against himself. If at all the receipt can be said to have been executed, the same would not have been handed over to Balbir Singh or Rajinder Singh or anybody else for leaving a document in the hands of the person, who was so close and thick with Bal Mukand. It has been categorically admitted by Balbir Singh, rajinder Singh that the receipts were delivered to them at the instance of jai Parkash (in this regard a categoric answer given by Rajinder Singh has been pointed out while being cross examined ). It has also been admitted that all the persons of the Dera, who had about 60-65 votes used to help and support Bal Mukand in the elections i. e. the Akali Party which had association with Bhartiya Janta Party. It has also been pointed out that the statement which has been made by Rajinder Singh does not inspire confidence that such seasoned voters would commit such kind of blunder i. e. they knew at the time of polling the votes that it would be an offence if they would cast votes against consideration and that they had agreed to sell their votes. Such a statement would be self serving statement and cannot be accepted as an independent statement. Such a statement would be self serving statement and cannot be accepted as an independent statement. If such mind is depictable from the answers given by the witnesses, status of such a witnesses can be well understood. It has also been pointed out that the witness has stated that Jai parkash had told them that his name should not come anywhere. However, when the receipt is issued the name of Jai Parkash has been mentioned and the receipt is stated to have been handed over to Rajinder Singh/balbir singh. In the same breath the witness stated that since the money was paid by Jai Parkash, therefore, his name figures. It is not understandable that if on such a document the name of the candidate is scribed the receipt would be handed over to those persons who were closely connected with Bal mukand. The contention is that these witnesses are set up witnesses for putting the incorrect facts into the mouth of such witnesses. The status of such witnesses cannot be accepted in view of the fact that they have categorically admitted their close relations with Bal Mukand and that they all helped and supported Bal Mukand in the previous elections, where he had emerged as a successful candidate. The witness is not worth relying for accepting what has been stated after having been tutored and the documents produced are also self serving documents. 14. Learned counsel has also pointed out the statement of Sraj mohammad, who has appeared as PW3. In the affidavit,the said witness has stated that Jai Parkash, Balbir Singh and Rajinder Singh residents of Ward no.18, Mandi Gobindgarh had come to his office. It has also been stated that he had been given a sum of Rs.28,000/- for supplying bricks at the rate of Rs.1400/- per thousand. He has also corroborated the fact that receipt had been issued and the same was handed over to Balbir Singh. He has categorically admitted that he does not maintain any bill book, receipt book, cash memo and that he also does not maintain any account books. However stated that he maintains "kachi copy". He has further stated that the bricks had been purchased by him from a brick kiln at Samaspur about 20 Kms from Dera Santan. This witness has categorically admitted the fact of cutting the dates and that changing of "23" to "13" has been admitted. However stated that he maintains "kachi copy". He has further stated that the bricks had been purchased by him from a brick kiln at Samaspur about 20 Kms from Dera Santan. This witness has categorically admitted the fact of cutting the dates and that changing of "23" to "13" has been admitted. He has also admitted that some of the documents have blank columns and that the same are blank because he has stopped the work. He has further stated that he has stopped the work since May 2003. He has further stated that he is not doing any business but is carrying on his vocation of agriculture. He has further admitted that he does not own any agricultural land but volunteered that he has taken the land on rent/lease. He has stated that he is cultivating 17 Killas of land which is situated in village Sounti and Bhathal. This witness was unable to give the names of the owner of the land whose land is stated to be taken on rent. He also does not know the month in which the document for taking the land on rent had been executed. He has also admitted that the brick kiln from whom he had purchased the bricks had not issued any bills for sale of the bricks. He has also admitted that Ex. P3, the receipt had not been issued from the note book Ex. PW3/a. 15. The cumulative reading of the statement made in cross examination shows that the witness has not been able to withstand the status of execution of the receipt Ex. P3. The witness has also not been able to corroborate the fact that Bal Mukand had ever remained the President of the Municipal Council. This in itself belies the credibility of the witness. It would be absolutely incorrect to rely upon such a witness vis-a-vis the statement made by an affidavit tendered in examination-in-chief. 16. Learned counsel has also pointed out the statement of PW5 vikas Goel son of Achra Nand, who has categorically admitted that whatever was written on the receipt Ex. P4 is in his hand writing and bears his signatures also but the writing is not correctly recorded as the same was dictated to him. He has also stated that the words "rs.7975/- received from jai Parkash is in my hand but the same was written as dicated to him. P4 is in his hand writing and bears his signatures also but the writing is not correctly recorded as the same was dictated to him. He has also stated that the words "rs.7975/- received from jai Parkash is in my hand but the same was written as dicated to him. He has further stated that printed receipts and printed bills"are issued. He could not disclose the date of execution of the document exhibited as Ex. P.4. He has also stated that the suggestion is incorrect as mentioned in the document ex. P4 that the amount was paid by Jai Parkash. He has also denied that the amount was for the supply of 15 trolleies of earth at the rate of Rs.300/- per trolley and 25 bags of cement at the rate of Rs.139/- per bag. He has categorcially stated that no material was sent to Dera Santan on the basis ex. P4. He has also denied that Balbir Singh and Rajinder Singh and Jai parkash had ever come to him on March 4, 2003. He has also denied the suggestion that Jai Parkah had given the money for supply of the material. It may be noticed that while recording the statement of the aforesaid witness , the counsel for the election-petitioner had stated that the witness has turned hostile and is under the influence of the returned candidate and that he should be declared hostile with permission to cross-examine the witness. 17. This request was opposed and the question of declaring the witness hostile had been kept open to be decided at the time of deciding the main arguments. No observation with regard to the status of the witnes has been made by the Tribunal. The deposition made by the aforesaid witness shows that the whole story is a cooked up story. However, the witness has stated that there is no entry in the stock register pertaining to the receipt Ex. P4 as no actual delivery had taken place. The real fact, as emerged, is evident from the fact that the self serving documents are not sustainable and the same cannot be relied upon in upsetting the result of the election in favour of the returned candidate. All these facts have not been noticed by the tribunal; while interpreting the evidence accordingly. 18. The real fact, as emerged, is evident from the fact that the self serving documents are not sustainable and the same cannot be relied upon in upsetting the result of the election in favour of the returned candidate. All these facts have not been noticed by the tribunal; while interpreting the evidence accordingly. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that ram Singh who has been referred to in the alleged receipt i. e. self serving document, has not been examined. It is not known as to whether such person is a fictitious person or has been named for the sake of naming a person. This fact has also not been noticed by the Tribunal. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the basic principles of accepting corrupt practice alleged against a returned candidate have been completely ignored. It is mandatorily required that the corrupt practice so alleged ought to be proved by way of producing the strict proof in that regard. It is also the settled law that oral evidence is not enough for concluding the allegation of corrupt practice, which ought to be proved by virtue of production of strong reliable evidence. In the instant case, no strict proof in support of the corrupt practice has been brought on record except for the oral evidence, which again is not worth the weight of the paper as the same could not withstand the rigor of Law of Evidence. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the HON BLE Supreme Court in re: Thakur Sen Negi V/s. Dev raj Negi and another, AIR 1994 S. C.2526 (at page 2529),. The relevant paras pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant reads as under:- "4. Since allegations in regard to corrupt practice are quasi-criminal in nature and entail the penalty of disqualification, the Court would be justified in looking for strong and dependable evidence and its refusal to base its decision on oral evidence alone would not be unjustified if the said evidence is not supported by strong, reliable and trustworthy corroboration. No exception can be taken to the chief Minister canvassing for his partys candidate and highlighting the promises made in his partys election manifesto, proposed developmental progtrmmes envisaged by his party, etc. No exception can be taken to the chief Minister canvassing for his partys candidate and highlighting the promises made in his partys election manifesto, proposed developmental progtrmmes envisaged by his party, etc. if returned to power, but if hethreatens people of dire consequences for their failure to vote for his candidate or even threatens to shut down developmental programmes and schemes of the area, that would be a different matter and coaurts would frown at such attempts. Taking the totality of evidence into account and having regard to the guidelines laid down by this Court in various decisions the learned Judge held that the appellant had failed to prove the allegations regarding the corrupt practices. In his view the evidence consists of partisan witnesses who cannot be relied upon without responsible and dependable corroboration, which is totally lacking in this case. The learned Judge also felt that the evidence of the other witnesses whose names were not disclosed even till the affidavit for better particulars was filed cannot improve upon the evidence of partisan witnesses. It is this approach which is assailed before us. " 20. In re: S. Baldev Singh Mann V/s. S. Gurcharan Singh MLA and others,air 1996, S. C.1109, the relevant paras pointed out by the learned counsel reads as under:- "8. It is well settled that an allegation of corrupt practices within the meaning of sub-sections (1) to (8) of section 123 of the Act, made in the election petition are regarded quasi criminal in nature requiring a strict proof of the same because the consequences are not only very serious but also penal in nature. It may be pointed out that on the proof of any of the corrupt practices as alleged in the election petition it is not only the election of the returned candidate which is declared void and set aside but besides the disqualification of the returned candidate, the candidate himself or his agent or any other person, as the case may be, if found to have committed corrupt practice may be punished with imprisonment under Sec.135-A of the Act. It is for these reasons that the Court insists upon a strict proof of such allegation of corrupt practice and not todecide the case on preponderance or probabilities. The evidence has, therefore, to be judged having regard to these well settled principles. " 21. It is for these reasons that the Court insists upon a strict proof of such allegation of corrupt practice and not todecide the case on preponderance or probabilities. The evidence has, therefore, to be judged having regard to these well settled principles. " 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that reliance cannot be placed upon fabricated evidence as the documents exs. P.3 and P4 cannot be said to be attributable to the returned candidate. A document which is a creation by way of the note scribed by a person, who has been accepted to be supporter of the petitioner-respondent Bal mukand, cannot be relied upon and that such evidence deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in re: Rampal Singh V/s. Kr. Satyavir and another , air 1971 SC 676. The relevant para reads as under: "in the above view of the matter we consider it wholly unnecessary to examine the question whether Mahipal singh was closely associated with the appellant or not and the effect of non production of Mohinderpal Singh. We may, however, point out that the observations of the learned Judge with regard to the bill for Rs.1700.60 which was produced along with the return of election expenses by the appellant and about the part payment of the bill made on February 21, 1969 which was not in round figures, are prompted mostly by the whole atmosphere of suspicion which was quite naturally generated owing to the forgeries which were found in the books of account, credit memos, bill books etc. of the Vijay engineering Corporation. But the point which is of real consequence is that the Court cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the manipulation of various accounts and documents was done by Gupta or some other employee of the said firm solely for the appellants benefit. The only piece of evidence which would have concluded the matter, namely, the original chits was deliberately withheld or done away with not at the instance of the appellant but by those who were acting in the interest of respondent No.1. In such a state of affairs it would not be safe to base the conclusion on a matter involving a corrupt practice which has serious consequences on such an unreliable, fabricated and manipulated evidence. In such a state of affairs it would not be safe to base the conclusion on a matter involving a corrupt practice which has serious consequences on such an unreliable, fabricated and manipulated evidence. The lerned judges unfortunately did not consider all these matters in their proper perspective. " 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that while examining the evidence of the star witnesses it was obligatory upon the tribunal to have considered as to whether the element of inducement exists or does not exist. The witnesses who have supported the alleged story of making payment to certain persons for supplying the bricks and cement bags etc for making the roads had to be examined as to who is deposing i. e. the person who was closely associated with the petitioner i. e. Bal Mukand in the earlier elections, where he had been successful. These are those persons who had been asked to depose against the returned candidate i. e. Jai parkash, whom they had all along opposed. It cannot be accepted that these persons would turn around and support Jai Parkash especially when it has been corroborated that they belong to Akali Party which had been subsequently supporting the RSS in their elections. Thus, the theory of inducement has to be examined in the right and correct perspective, which has not been applied in the instant case. Can such a person depose in the manner in which it has been projected, in the instant case when no connection whatsoever is shown or has been established with Jai Parkash? the documents which have been relied upon are nothing but the handy work of these witnesses and that two of the witnesses i. e. Sraj Mohammad and vikas Goel PW3 and PW4 have deposed that the payments so reflected in the receipt are not shown in their books of accounts. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the dicta of the HON BLE Supreme Court in re: Rahim Khan V/s. Khurshid Ahmed and others, AIR 1975 SC 290. The relevant paras 9,10 and 14, referred to, reads as under: "9. However, we have to remember another factor. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the dicta of the HON BLE Supreme Court in re: Rahim Khan V/s. Khurshid Ahmed and others, AIR 1975 SC 290. The relevant paras 9,10 and 14, referred to, reads as under: "9. However, we have to remember another factor. An election onece held is not to be treated in a lighthearted 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. 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 rturned 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. " "10. There are many who are cynical about the enforcement of the election law, which is too moral for the pragmatic skills of the politicians when locked in pithced battles. They regard these vices as inevitable and therefore remain indifferent at their prevalence. Sydney Harris statement in this context is apposite. "once we assuage our conscience by calling something a "necessary evil", it begins to look more and more necessary and less and less evil. " 23. For this very reason the Court has to be stern so as to induce the candidates, the parties and the workers that temper and truthfulness so appropriate to the process and not bewail,a s the report of the fifth General Election in India (1971-72, issued by the Election Commission) does (at p.198 thereof ). "but how can we expect that elections will be absolutely and totally corruption free when the whole country in every sphere and departmentof life and activity is plunged in the ocean ofcorruption It is everybodys complaint that there is no business, trade or industry where black marketing or bribery is not practised. . . . "but how can we expect that elections will be absolutely and totally corruption free when the whole country in every sphere and departmentof life and activity is plunged in the ocean ofcorruption It is everybodys complaint that there is no business, trade or industry where black marketing or bribery is not practised. . . . Remove corruption in general and corruption in election will be a thing of the past". "14. It is not necessary to examine whether the evidence justified and finding that Sohanlal got the use of a car at the expense of the appellant. We will assume that is so. But isis not every help by a candidate to a fellow candidate that constitutes corrupt practice. Such financial aid must be toinduce the latter not to withdrawn from the election. May be, a candidate may wish to fight but do it so bloodlessly that he may not reach his potential supporters and if his effective canvassing is in the interests of another candidate (the electoral chemisty has many actions and reactions) then the latter may invigorate his compaigning with funds or aid in kind, not for non-withdrawal but for full blooded electioneering. To jack up is different from preventing a jump down. This is not a corrupt practice under the law and so the key question is not whether a car was provided but whether the provision of the car was to proud the candidate not to withdraw. A close up of the evidence on this significant facet leaves us in a serious doubt about the sufficiency and reliability of the proof. " 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the cumulative effect of all the deficiencies and discrepancies pointed out in the verification made by the petition and also the kind of evidence which has been produced in support of the alleged corrupt practices, the election petition deserves to be dismissed, which has been incorrectly accepted by the Tribunal. Since the alleged allegations of corrupt practices are not supported by strict proof of evidence nor any strong reliable evidence has been produced except the oral evidence and the documents i. e. Ex. P.3 and p4 are nothing but self serving documents, cannot be read supportively against the returned candidate, for the alleged corrupt practices. Since the alleged allegations of corrupt practices are not supported by strict proof of evidence nor any strong reliable evidence has been produced except the oral evidence and the documents i. e. Ex. P.3 and p4 are nothing but self serving documents, cannot be read supportively against the returned candidate, for the alleged corrupt practices. The argument of inducement is specifically missing and is contra to the principles of law of evidence which has been completely ignored by the tribunal. Resultantly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the election petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 25. On the other hand, learned counsel for the election-petitioner i. e. Bal Mukand has contended that the returned candidate has not denied categorically the pleas set out in the election petition. Resultantly, the tribunal has correctly interpreted that in the event of the allegations having not been denied, the same shall be deemed to have been admitted. He has drawn my attention to para 50 (ivx) of the petition as also to the reply commensurate thereto. He has laid emphasis upon the averment that specific name has been mentioned in the aforesaid para but there is no denial except for the bald statement that the allegations made in the said para are emphatically denied. It is the settled law that if a specific averment is not specifically denied the same shall be deemed to have been admitted and reliance can be made accordingly. He has also drawn my attention to para 9 of the affidavit dated 1.6.2004 of Jai Parkash. pointing out that he has deposed that he had not met Ram Singh of Dera Santan along with Balbir singh and Rajinder Singh. He has further admitted that he had propagated in normal routine style in Dera Santan as none had been done in the remaining part of Ward No.18 during the election compaign. This clearly corroborates that he had met Ram Singh,balbirsingh and Rajinder Singh and they have categorically deposed that he had promised to construct road, drainage etc. in Dera Santan and also promised to pay money, this averment has not been demolished. Thus, the Tribunal has correctly inferred the evidence of Balbir singh and Rajinder Singh, in support of the allegations of corrupt practices. in Dera Santan and also promised to pay money, this averment has not been demolished. Thus, the Tribunal has correctly inferred the evidence of Balbir singh and Rajinder Singh, in support of the allegations of corrupt practices. He has also drawn my attention to the fact recorded in the cross examination of Jai Parkash to the effect that he has admitted the fact of construction of roads, drainage, water supply and sewerage etc. which have to come into existence in the Dera. He has categorically admitted that he did not remember at the time of canvassing for the election that there were were roads and water supply etc. in existence in the Dera. Inference can be drawn categorically that in view of the evidence of Balbir singh and rajinder Singh, that the construction was made at the instance of Jai parkash by giving money in return of the votes having been casted in his favour. He has drawn my attention to Ex. P3 wherein the name of Jai parkash has been mentioned and the said receipt bears the signatures of Sraj mohammad. This receipt clearly indicated that the money had been received for having supplied bricks at the rate of Rs.1400/- and that a total sum of Rs.28000/- had been received from Jai Parkash, the returned candidate. He has also drawn my attention to receipt Ex. P4 wherein again a sum of Rs.7975/- is stated to have been received from Jai Parkash for having supplied 15 trolleys of earth and 25 bags of cement. These documents have come on record and the same could not be demolished by any evidence produced by the returned candidate. Both these receipts are indicative of the fact that money was paid by Jai Parkash for the purposes of construction of roads and drainage etc. in the Dera and it was for this benefit the votes had been casted in favour of Jai Pakrash by the residents of the dera. Both these receipts are indicative of the fact that money was paid by Jai Parkash for the purposes of construction of roads and drainage etc. in the Dera and it was for this benefit the votes had been casted in favour of Jai Pakrash by the residents of the dera. This establishes the factum of corrupt practices having been indulged into by the returned candidate and the Tribunal, therefore, has drawn the correct inference and has , therefore, accepted the petition, resulting in setting aside the election of the returned candidate and further debaring him to contest election for six years i have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the order of the Tribunal and the evidence brought on record and the respective pleadings of the parties. The cumulative effect of perusing the evidence and the statements made by the witnesses and the pleadings of the parties and also the verification appended thereto, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has fallen into error in accepting the petition by way of holding that Jai Parkash had indulged into corrupt practices for winning the election. 26. The election petitioner has produced two star witnesses i. e. Balbir Singh PW2 and Rajinder Singh PW4, apart from appearing himself as a witness. The pivotal story set up is that Jai Parkash returned candidate had promised the residents of the Dera for consturction of roads, drainage and making sewerage etc. and in return asked the residents to caste the votes in his favour. Balbir Singh and Rajinder Singh have deposed by way of affidavit and have made an effort to support the contention of the election petitioner and have also produced the documents Ex. P3 and P4 i. e. Receipts issued by Sraj Mohammad and Vikas Goel. These receipts need to be considered vis-a-vis the statements made by Sraj Mohammad and Vikas goel, who have appeared as PW3 and PW5 respectively. Both these witnesses have not been able to withstand the scrutiny of Law of Evidence as also the factual status accordingly. They have not been able to prove the credibility of the said documents. Sraj Mohammad has categorically admitted names of Ram Singh had been given by the person accompanying jai Parkash that name of those persons have been given as Balbir Singh and rajinder Singh. They have not been able to prove the credibility of the said documents. Sraj Mohammad has categorically admitted names of Ram Singh had been given by the person accompanying jai Parkash that name of those persons have been given as Balbir Singh and rajinder Singh. He has further admitted that the said receipt had not been scribed by Jai Parkash nor it was signed by Balbir Singh and Rajinder singh. He has also stated that in the book Ex. PW3/a and in the receipt mark"a" there is a cutting in the date which has been changed from " 23 to 13". He has also stated that the subsequent receipts which have been marked as Mark "c" in Ex. PW3/a the columns at C1 and C2 are lying blank, thereafter volunteered that this receipt is blank because he had stopped the work. He has further stated that he has stopped working in the month of May 2003 but has not been able to give exact date. He further states that now-a-days he is not doing any business but has undertaken vocation of agricultue. He has further admitted that he does not own any agricultural land but further volunteered that he has taken the land on rent. He further states that he is cultivating 17 Killas of land on rent in villages sounti, Bhathal and Thua. He further states that there is a writing which is in existence for taking the land on rent which was scribed by Malkit Singh dhillon the document writer. He further states that he did not remember the month in which the writing was scribed. He further states that the writing was signed by him and the owner of the land ( He also states that name of jai Parkash in the document Ex. P3 was written at his asking ). It is strange that a document which can be used against a person would be scribed at the asking of the person himself and he would ask a person who is the author of the document to add his name. The statement of Sraj Mohd. does not inspire confidence at all. The document is nothing but an engineered document and can be definitely explained as self serving document in the election of Bal Mukand. The statement of Sraj Mohd. does not inspire confidence at all. The document is nothing but an engineered document and can be definitely explained as self serving document in the election of Bal Mukand. The fact is made out from the record that Balbir singh and Rajinder Singh were closely known to Bal Mukand election petitioner and they had been helping him all along in previous elections in which he was successful and admittedly he had suffered no confidence motion as well. It cannot be accepted that such person would change loyalities for supporting the other candidate. There is no other document or any person from the Dera who has come and deposed that the roads,drainage and sewerages etc. were got consutrcted by Jai Parkash in return of the votes casted in his favour. If such witnesses i. e. Balbir Singh and Rajinder Singh were emphatic that the members of the Dera had casted their votes in favour of Jai Parkash, they could have volunteered for production of the ballot papers, which were issued to them and could have indicated that they had casted their votes in favour of Jai Parkash. No doubt, it is the settled law that a voter cannot be compelled to divulge to whom he voted; there is a bar under Sec.7 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 but this bar has not been held to be absolute i. e. if a voter witness wishes to declare voluntarily the status of his vote in larger interest of free and fair election, he would be entitled to do so. If Balbir Singh and rajinder Singh were so forth right, they could have called for the record and could have pointed out that they had casted their votes in favour of Jai parkash and not Bal Mukand to whom they have been supporting all along. In this regard, reference may be made to the dicta of the Supreme Court rendered in re: S. Raghbir Singh Gill V/s. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and others, AIR 1980 SC 1362. The relevant paras i. e.13,14,19,20,21, and 22 reads as under:- " 13. Secrecy of ballot undoubtedly is an indispensable adjunsct of free and fair elections. In this regard, reference may be made to the dicta of the Supreme Court rendered in re: S. Raghbir Singh Gill V/s. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and others, AIR 1980 SC 1362. The relevant paras i. e.13,14,19,20,21, and 22 reads as under:- " 13. Secrecy of ballot undoubtedly is an indispensable adjunsct of free and fair elections. A voter had to be statutorily assured that he would not be compelled to disclose by any authority as to for whom he voted so that voter may vote without fear or favour and is free from any apprehension of its disclosure against his will from his own lips. To that extent s.94 of the Act carves out an exception to S.132 of the evidence Act and S.95 of the Act (see Dr. Chotalal Jivabhai patel V/s. Vidilal Lallubhai Mehta) (1971)12 Guj. L. R.850 at page 860. As section 94 carves out an exception to S.132 of the Evidence Act as also S.95 of the Act. It was necessary to provide for protection of the witness if he is compelled to naswer a question which may tend to incriminate him. Section 95 provides for grant of a certificate of idemnity in the circumstances therein set out. A conspetus of the relevant provisions of the Act and Sections 93,94 and 95 of the Act would affirmatively show that they provide for a procedure, including the procedure for examination of witnesses, their rights and obligations in the trial of an election petition. The expression "witness" used in the section is a pointer and further expression "other person" extends the protection to a forum outside Courts. Sec.94 therefore cannot be singled out as was contended on behalf of the appellant as a substantive provision and being unrelated to the procedure for trial of election petition. This conclusion is reinforced by the title of Chapter III "trial of election petitions" because it is legitimate and indeed proper to have recourse to heading and sub heading given to a group of sections in an act of parliament to find guidance for the construction of the words in a statute. ( (see R. V/s. Board of Trade, Ex-parte St. Martins preserving co. ( (see R. V/s. Board of Trade, Ex-parte St. Martins preserving co. Ltd (165) 1 QB 603 at p.607) coupled with this one can advantageously referred to a known canon of construction that every section of a statute is to be construed with reference to the context and other sections of the Act, so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. 14. The marginal note of Sec.94 says secrecy of voting not to be infringed. Sec.128 of the Act casts an obligation on every officer, clerk, agent or other person to maintain and aid in maintaining secrecy of the voting and they shall not (except for some purpose authorised by or under any law) communicate to any person any information calculated to violate such secrecy. Rule 23 (3) of the Conduct of Election rules 1961 (Rules for short) imposes a duty to conceal the serial number of the ballot paper effectively before it is issued at election in any local authorities constituency or by any assembly members. Similarly rule 23 (5) (a) and (b) of the rules provide for effectively maintaining the secrecy of the postal ballot papers in the manner prescribed therein. Rule 31 (2), 38 (4), 39 (1), (5), (6) and (8), 40 (1) second proviso, 38-A (4), 39 A (1) and (2) and similar other rules provide for maintaining secrecy of ballot. It cannot be gainsaid that various provisions referred to above ensure secrecy of ballot and even s.94 has been enacted to relieve a person from a situation where he may be obliged to divulge for whom he has voted under testimonial compulsion. Secrecy of ballot can be appropriately styled as a postulate of constitutional democracy. It enshrines a vital principle ofparliamentary institution set up under the constitution. It subserves a very vital public interest in that elector or a voter should be absolutely free in exercise of his franchise untrammelled by any constraint which includes constraint as to the disclosure. A remote or distinct possibility that at some point a voter may under a compulsion of law be forced to disclose for whom he has voted would act as a positive constraint and check on his freedom to exercise his franchise in the manner he freely chooses to exercise. Therefore, it can be said with confidence that this postulate of constitutional democracy rests on public policy. 19. Therefore, it can be said with confidence that this postulate of constitutional democracy rests on public policy. 19. Two possible constructions are, firstly, that the sections casts an absolute prohibition and seals the mouth of the voter permanently and admits of no exception in which he can divulge his vote and secondly, that it is a privilege of the voter to disclose his vote if he voluntarily chooses to do so but he cannot be compelled by Court or any other authority to divulge his vote. Which of the two constructions advances the object of an enactment ? 20. If S.94 is interpreted to mean to be a privilege of the voter to divulge or not to divulge how he voted and if he chooses not to divulge S.94 protects him inasmuch as he cannot be compelled to divulge that information then if does not stand in conflict with the other important principle of free and fair elections to sustain Parliamentary democracy. When it is said that no witness or other person shall be required to state for whom he has voted at an election. It also means that both in the court when a person is styled as a witness and outside the court when he may be questioned about how he voted though he would not have the character or the qualification of a witness yet in either situation he is free to refuse to answer the question without incurring any penalty or forfeiture. That guarantees the vital principle behind secrecy of ballot in that the voter would be able to vote uninhibited by fear. But he chooses to open his lips of his own free will without direct or indirect compulsion and waive the privilege, nothing prevents him from disclosing how he voted. No provision was brought to our notice which would expose him to any penalty if a voter voluntarily chooses to disclose how he voted or for whom he voted. Sec.128 has nothing to do with the voter disclosing for whom he voted. It casts an obligation of secrecy of those connected with the process of election and not in the voter. 21. If the other construction is adopted, the mischief thereby perpetrated can be demonstrably established. Sec.128 has nothing to do with the voter disclosing for whom he voted. It casts an obligation of secrecy of those connected with the process of election and not in the voter. 21. If the other construction is adopted, the mischief thereby perpetrated can be demonstrably established. One can then manipulate the vote cast by a voter and poor voter will be helpless and unable to assist the court by his testimony which is the best direct evidence to establish for whom he voted and what mischief has been played with his vote. 22. The interpretation of S.94 which appeals to us ensures free and fair elections. Secrecy of ballot was mooted to ensure free and fair elections. If the very secrecy of ballot instead of ensuring free and fair elections strikes at the root of the principle of free and fair elections this basis postulate of democracy would be utilized for undoing free and fair elections which provide life-blood to parliamentary democracy. If secrecy of ballot instead of ensuring free and fair elections is used, as is done in this case, to defeat the very public purpose for which it is enacted, to suppress a wrong coming to light and to protect a fraud on the election process or even to defend a crime, viz. forgery of ballot papers, this principle of secrecy of ballot will have to yield to the larger principle of free and fair election. " 27. The witness Vikas Goel who has appeared as PW5 has completely let the cat out of bag when he suggested to state that whatever is written in the receipt Ex. P4 is not correctly recorded but it was got dictated. It is at this stage the witness was sought to be declared hostile but this question was left open to be decided at the time of arguments but nothing in this regard has been opined by the Tribunal. In any case, the election petitioner had been allowed to put the leading questions but the answer to the same was to be considered subject to the final decision. This witness has categorically stated that Rajinder Singh and Balbir Singh had come along with Bal Mukand to him for getting Ex. P4 and that this document was written down on the dictation of the aforesaid persons. This witness has categorically stated that Rajinder Singh and Balbir Singh had come along with Bal Mukand to him for getting Ex. P4 and that this document was written down on the dictation of the aforesaid persons. He has further stated that Jai Parkash had never ever come to him in connection with creation of the document Ex. P4. He has further stated that Jai Parkash had never ever paid any amount of Rs.7975/-or any other amount to Jai Parkash. He has further stated that the transactions of sale and purchase are entered in the books and that the aforesaid amount had not been entered in any of the account books because no payment had been received by him. He has also admitted that the sale of cement is entered in the stock register and that there is no entry of the sale of cement as mentioned in Ex. P4. This seals the fate of the document Ex. P4. It is obvious that the Tribunal was not justified in placing reliance upon the document Ex. P4. Even if the witness is accepted to have turned hostile, the questions which have been put and the answers which have come clearly spells out the status of Ex. P4 and further the credibility of the witness i. e. Rajinder Singh and Balbir Singh, which already stands diluted by factum of admission that these two persons belong to the Akali Party and had been supporting Bal Mukand all along where he had been successful. These witnesses cannot be said to be stating the truth fully as the purpose and object is still aligned with Bal Mukand. They would support him for the success of the election petition filed by Bal mukand. It was absolutely incorrect on the part of the Tribunal to have admitted the deposition made by Balbir Singh and Rajinder Singh. Apart from these documents, no other corroborative document is forthcoming as none has been pointed out by learned counsel for Bal Mukand to the effect that the allegation of corrupt practice stands established. 28. It is the settled law that the corrupt practices alleged ought to be tested very consciously and strictly and in support thereof "strict proof" ought to be elicited from the evidence, which is brought on record by the concerned parties. 28. It is the settled law that the corrupt practices alleged ought to be tested very consciously and strictly and in support thereof "strict proof" ought to be elicited from the evidence, which is brought on record by the concerned parties. Levelling the allegation is one aspect that may find itself in the part of the pleadings but when the same has been denied emphatically, strong proof in support thereof definitely needs to be produced and such proof should be non-controversial and un-challengeable evidence for arriving at the irresistible conclusion /accomplishment. In the instant case, no such documents has been produced and the aforesaid documents which have been produced, do not inspire confidence for accepting the allegation of corrupt practice against Jai Parkash, further, the witnesses especially Rajinder Singh and Balbir Singh have corroborated the allegations of having constructed the roads and drainage etc. at the instance of Jai Parkash for which the payment has been made but they have not been able to establish this fact beyond doubt. They have not been able to produce any other evidence as to who had constructed the road and drainage etc. if at all such construction had been made. The best witness could be the masons and worker who had undertaken and carried out the job apart from one person Ram Singh who has been named in the receipt but has not been produced for the reasons best known to the election petitioner. The admission on the part of Balbir Singh and Rajinder Singh that they belong to Akali Party and they have been supporting Bal Mukand in the earlier elections and that he has been successful in the election would go a long way to show their alliance with Bal Mukand for the success of the petition. This fact has been categorically admitted by Balbir Singh and Rajinder singh while they stepped into the witness box. Are they suggesting that they had sold their votes If that be so would they not be equally liable against the principles of democracy enunciated under law. If such is the act, can the deposition of such a person be believed If a voter can sell his vote, his statement is too dangerous to be believed. In the first instance for casting his vote for consideration and thereafter deposing against such person for different consideration. If such is the act, can the deposition of such a person be believed If a voter can sell his vote, his statement is too dangerous to be believed. In the first instance for casting his vote for consideration and thereafter deposing against such person for different consideration. So far as the verification of the paragraphs of the affidavit is concerned vis-a-vis the affidavit submitted by Bal Mukand election petitioner, I need not delve upon the same as prima facie, I am not accepting their deposition accordingly. Therefore, this question need not be answered. 29. The Tribunal has accepted the petition on very weak footing as the allegations of corrupt practices as alleged in the petition have not been established at all. The evidence produced in support thereof cannot withstand the rigor of Law of Evidence. The pivotal evidence i. e. Ex. P.3 and P4 is nothing but a fabricated document and is a self serving document, which cannot be accepted the basis or the foundation for setting aside the election of Jai Parkash. 30. The Tribunal has returned the finding on issues No.1,2 ,3 and 9, against the petitioner, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal thereon deserves to be affirmed. So far as issues No.4,5 and 6 are concerned, the findings thereon deserve to be set aside. Resultantly, the election petition filed by Bal Mukand also deserves to be dismissed. So far as the findings on issues No.7 and 8 are concerned, the same have been returned against the respondent-appellant and that no arguments have been addressed in support thereof. Resultantly, the finding thereon of the Tribunal are affirmed. 31. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the tribunal dated December 14, 2004, is set aside in view of the above and the findings on issues Nos.4,5 and 6 are reversed and the election petition filed by Bal Mukand is dismissed with costs which are assessed at rs.10,000.00. 32. Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO No.499 of 2005, has not been able to address meaningful arguments in support of the finding returned by the Tribunal in regard to issues No.1,2,3 and 9. The Tribunal has given the appropriate finding on the aforesaid issues upon the basis of the pleadings etc. of the parties. I do not find any infirmity therein. Resultantly, FAO No.499 of 2005, filed by Bal Mukand, is dismissed.