JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J.:-The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.8.2005 passed by learned Election Tribunal, Gurdaspur, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, challenging the election of Manjit Kaur respondent to the post of Sarpanch, was dismissed. 2. It was stated in the election petition that for the post of Sarpanch of village Annokot Kalan, Dalbir Kaur-appellant and Manjit Kaur-respondent No.1 filed their nomination papers. Election was held on 29.6.2003. However, the Presiding Officer and the polling party, with the connivance of Manjit Kaur-respondent, did not allow some of the voters to cast their votes. In fact, he was openly proclaiming that he will declare respondent No.1 as Sarpanch of the village because he belonged to Congress Party, whereas the appellant owed allegiance to Akali Party. The polling agent of the appellant submitted written objections regarding not allowing the voters to cast their votes, but the said objections were destroyed by the Presiding Officer. The result of the election was not declared in the presence of the appellant nor her signatures, or that of her polling agent, obtained on the result-sheet. Accordingly, it was prayed that the election for the post of Sarpanch be declared as illegal and void. 3. Smt. Manjit Kaur, the returned candidate, filed her written statement denying therein that the polling party in connivance with her had committed corrupt practices or that the Presiding Officer did not allow the voters to cast their votes. Rest of the averments made by the election petitioner were also denied and prayer was accordingly made for the dismissal of the petition itself. Learned Election Tribunal framed the following issues :­ 1. Whether the election of respondent No.1 for the office of Sarpanch is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the election petition? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as the returned candidate for the office of Sarpanch? OPP. 3. Relief? 4. The appellant examined herself as PW1, besides examining Kuldeep Singh as PW2 and Rajinder Singh as PW3. Respondent No.1 stepped herself into the witness-box as RW1. 5. As mentioned above, the election petition was dismissed by learned Election Tribunal and hence, the present appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.4 and with their assistance gone through the records of the case. Respondent No.1 stepped herself into the witness-box as RW1. 5. As mentioned above, the election petition was dismissed by learned Election Tribunal and hence, the present appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.4 and with their assistance gone through the records of the case. 7. The basis of the claim made by the appellant was the illegal gratification said to have been received by the Presiding Officer from the returned candidate. It was so stated by the election petitioner in the election petition. These allegations were denied by the returned candidate in her written statement. At the trial of the case, the election petitioner did not bring any evidence in record about any gratification having been accepted by the Presiding Officer. Neither the election petitioner nor any of her two witnesses stated anything on this aspect. 8. The election petitioner relied upon the letter Ex. PW3/A written by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur to the State Election Commission, Punjab, wherein it was mentioned that irregularities had been committed by the Returning Officer as well as by the Presiding the Officer during the conduct of elections. The enquiry was initiated on the basis of a complaint submitted by the election petitioner. In the said inquiry conducted by the Additional enquiry, Deputy Commissioner (Development), Gurdaspur the returned candidate was never associated. There is also no material on the file to show that any effort was made by the Enquiry Officer to summon the returned candidate during the enquiry. Practically, it was an ex parte enquiry. Under these circumstances, the conclusions established arrived at in the enquiry report cannot be used against the returned candidate. 9. Perusal of the statement of the election petitioner recorded as PW1 would show that although she had submitted a complaint to the high ups in respect of the conduct of election but she did not remember the year, month or date when the same was made. She also did not know the name of the officer to whom it was made nor she had herself appeared before any officer. She then stated that in fact it was her husband, who had been appearing on her behalf. However, she could not tell anything as to before whom her husband had appeared. She also did not know the name of the officer to whom it was made nor she had herself appeared before any officer. She then stated that in fact it was her husband, who had been appearing on her behalf. However, she could not tell anything as to before whom her husband had appeared. In such a situation, the election petitioner was supposed to produce her husband in the witness­ box and seek necessary corroboration to her statement. As is clear from the records, husband of the election petitioner, who could be the best witness was not produced into the witness-box. 10. The election petitioner examined her polling agent Kuldeep Singh as PW2. Said Kuldeep Singh, when cross-examined, admitted that he was an under-matric, although he had studied Punjabi and English up to 9th class. He produced his affidavit Ext. PW2/A, which was written in English. He went on to state that he had not appended his signatures on any affidavit or filed such an affidavit. In fact, no affidavit was read over to him. Strangely enough, the affidavit Ex.PW2/A of Kuldeep Singh bears his signatures in Punjabi. Although, the same bears attestation made by the Oath Commissioner but no mention is made therein that the contents of the same have been explained to him in simple Punjabi language. Mention had been made that the affidavit had been read-over and explained to him. Once it is shown that the executant of the affidavit has signed the same in a language other than the one in which it was written, it may not be said that he was conscious enough of the contents mentioned therein, while appending his signatures. 11. The learned Election Tribunal, after perusing the evidence brought on the record, came to a conclusion that the election petitioner failed to prove the allegations made in the election petition. The findings arrived at cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse as the same were on the basis of evidence. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ——————————