JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. FACTS 1. By means of this election petition, the Petitioner has questioned the legality and/or validity of the election of the Respondent from the particular assembly constituency in the last assembly election in the State of Assam. According to the Petitioner, because of the large scale commission of corrupt practice of bribery as defined under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by the Respondent the returned candidate, as well as her election agent, her election is liable to be declared void under the mandate of Section 98(b) read with Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. The Petitioner is an elector from No. 120 Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency, his name being enrolled as a voter in the voter list pertaining to polling station No. 59 of the said constituency. He was an independent candidate for being elected from the said constituency, but has been defeated by the Respondent, the candidate of the Indian National Congress Party (INC). The Petitioner got defeated as the nearest rival. 3. As per the programme of the last general assembly election to the Assam Legislative Assembly declared by the Election Commission of lndia, the relevant dates for the election process in respect of the said Naharkatia Constituency, were as follows: (i) Last date of filling of nomination papers-17.3.2006 (ii) Date of scrutiny of nomination papers-18.3.2006 (iii) Last date of withdrawal of candidature-20.3.2006 (iv) Date of poll-3.4.2006 (v) Date of counting-11.5.2006 4. As stated above, the Petitioner contested the election by submitting his nomination papers as an independent candidate and the same was accepted as valid. On the other hand, the Respondent contested the election being nominated by the INC as its candidate. Her nomination paper was also declared to be valid by the Returning Officer. While the Petitioner was allotted the election symbol "Railway Engine", the Respondent being the nominated candidate of INC was allotted its symbol of "Hand". While the Petitioner appointed Wing Commander (Retired) Manoj Kumar Shrutikar as his election agent, the Respondent appointed one Sri Hiranya Mantri as her election agent. 5. The other four candidates in the fray were Sri Dibya Konwar of CPI(M), Sri Dhiraj Majhi of BJP, Sri Ram Raj konwar (Independent) and Sri Mahendra Dhadumia (Independent). 6. The poling and counting of votes, as scheduled were held on 3.4.2006 and 11.5.2006 respectively. 5. The other four candidates in the fray were Sri Dibya Konwar of CPI(M), Sri Dhiraj Majhi of BJP, Sri Ram Raj konwar (Independent) and Sri Mahendra Dhadumia (Independent). 6. The poling and counting of votes, as scheduled were held on 3.4.2006 and 11.5.2006 respectively. The results of the election was declared on 11.5.2006 itself. While the Petitioner secured 20,329 valid votes, the Respondent secured 40,065 valid votes. The Respondent having secured the highest number of votes, followed by the Petitioner, she was declared elected from the aforesaid Naharkatia constituency to the legislative assembly of the State of Assam. 7. The challenge of the Petitioner in respect of the election of the Respondent is on the ground that her election is vitiated by widespread commission of corrupt practice of bribery as defined under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is alleged that both the Respondent and her election agent alongwith her other workers with her knowledge and consent indulged in the corrupt practice of bribery and consequently, her election is liable to be declared void. The Petitioner has stated the facts and indicated the particulars, which according to him are material, in paragraphs 11 to 17 of the election petition. 8. In a nutshell, the allegations are that on 29.3.2006 at about 5.00 pm, the Respondent along with some Congress supporters and party workers went to the particular place and by offering Rs. 500/- each to the voters present, requested them to cast their votes in her favour. The Respondent also resorted to the same corrupt practice by offering Rs. 500/- each to the voters who assembled in Anr. place at about 9.00 pm on the same date i.e. 29.3.2006. Further, on 31.3.2006 at about 12.00 Noon, the Respondent repeated the same thing by offering Rs. 500/- each to the voters present in Anr. place asking them to cast their votes in lieu thereof Further allegation made is that on the date of poll, i.e. 3.4.2006, the Respondent organized a public feast in a nearby quarter to a polling station. The Respondent personally came to the place alongwith her supporters and inaugurated the feast at about 10 A.M. The voters who had come to cast their votes and who had already cast their votes were invited by the Respondent to participate in the public feast organized by her. The Respondent personally came to the place alongwith her supporters and inaugurated the feast at about 10 A.M. The voters who had come to cast their votes and who had already cast their votes were invited by the Respondent to participate in the public feast organized by her. The Respondent left the place at about 10.30 AM and again returned at about 3 PM and once again requested the voters assembled to participate in the public feast organized by her and then to cast their votes in her favour. The Petitioner has named the persons, who allegedly witnessed the incidents. 9. Further allegation made is that the election agent of the Respondent namely Sri Hiranya Mantri visited the particular place on 31.3.2006 alongwith other congress party workers and the Respondent herself and he offered Rs. 500/- each to the persons named in paragraph 15 of the election petition asking them to cast their own as well as the votes of their respective family members in favour of the Respondent. Again said Sri Hiranya Mantri accompanied by a worker and a supporter of the Respondent visited Anr. place on 1.4.2006 at about 1.30 P.M. and met the persons named in paragraph 16 of the election petition and offered Rs. 500/- each to them inducing them to vote for the Respondent Said Sri Hiranya Mantri accompanied by the workers and supporters of lie Respondent visited Anr. place on the same date at about 2.30 PM and repeated the same thing by offering Rs. 500/- to the persons named in paragraph 17 of the election petition and thereby induced them to cast their votes in favour of the Respondents. 10. According to the Petitioner, the aforementioned large scale commission of corrupt practice of bribery as defined by under Section 123(1) of the Act, by the Respondent, the returned candidate, as well/as her election agent has rendered the election of the Respondent, liable to be declared void under the mandate of Section 98(b) read with Section 100(1)(b) of the Act. For a ready reference paragraph 11 to 17 of the election petition in which the aforementioned allegations find place with particulars are quoted below: 11. For a ready reference paragraph 11 to 17 of the election petition in which the aforementioned allegations find place with particulars are quoted below: 11. That on 29.3.2006 at about 5 P.M. the Respondent alongwith some Congress supporters and party workers of the Respondent went to the Market area of Langheijan Tea Estate situated near the factory line staff quarters of the Langherjan tea Estate. Sri Niral Jojo, a leader of the local unit of the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha and a known supporter of the Respondent had earlier announced that the Respondent would be addressing a gathering in the evening of 29.3.2006. Accordingly, some voters residing in the said locality and enrolled in the Electoral Roll of the Constituency under polling station Nos. 38 and 39 had already assembled there. The Respondent on her arrival at the said place at about 5 RM. on 29.3.2006 requested the gathering to cast vote in her favour and gave Rs. 500/- each to the voters present there asking them to cast their votes in her favour. The Respondent and the persons accompanying her left the place at about 6 P.M. Sri Dipak Tanti, Smt. Geeta Ramani and Sri Baptu Orang were amongst the voters who were offered Rs. 500/- by the Respondent herself on the aforesaid occasion including them to cast their votes in her favour. The aforesaid three persons who were present there and were offered money as aforesaid are voters of polling station Nos. 38 and 39 of No. Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency. Sri Ramu Ghosh who is also a resident of the aforesaid locality and a voter witnessed the entire incident and reported the matter to the Election Agent of the Petitioner on 3.4.2006. The aforesaid act of the Respondent constitutes commission of corrupt practice of bribery as defined under Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 12. That on 29.3.2006 at about 9 p.m. the respondent alongwith some Congress supporters and party workers of the Respondent came to a place called line No. 9, Baghmara village, near M/s. Makum Motors (commonly known as Joypur Petrol Pump) by the side of Joypur Tea Estate. The residents of this locality are covered under Polling Station Nos. 77, 78 and 79 of No. Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency. Some voters of the No. 120 Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency falling under the aforesaid polling station Nos. The residents of this locality are covered under Polling Station Nos. 77, 78 and 79 of No. Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency. Some voters of the No. 120 Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency falling under the aforesaid polling station Nos. 77, 78 and 79 had assembled there on coming to know that the Respondent was scheduled to visit the area at about 9 P.M. On her arrival the Respondent requested the voters who had gathered there to cast their votes in her favour and offered Rs. 500/- each to the voters present there. The Respondent left the place after half an hour, i.e. at about 9.30 p.m. The entire incident was witnessed by Smt. Dipali Mech, Smti. Rupali Hatimuria, Sri Bhupen Mech and several Ors. all of whom are voters of the same polling stations of the constituency. The election agent of the Petitioner was informed about the aforesaid incident by Smt. Dipali Mech on 3.4.2006 at the premises of Naharkatia College where the polling station No. 79 was housed. The aforesaid act of the Respondent constitutes commission of corrupt practices of bribery as defined under Section 123(1)(A) (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 13. That on 31.3.2006 at about 12 Noon the Respondent came to the labour line of Desam Tea Estate situated near the playground of Desam Tea Estate. The voters residing in the said area are enrolled under polling station No. 31 of No. 120 Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency. The Respondent was accompanied amongst Ors. by her worker Sri Rajen Lahon. On her arrival there the Respondent approached some voters including one Sri Suresh Toppo and induced them to vote for her by offering them Rs. 500/- each. However, some of the votes present there objected to this illegal gesture of the Respondent at which the Respondent hastily retreated and left the place. This entire incident was reported to the Election Agent of the Petitioner on 3.4.2006 by Smti. Mridulena Changa who was present at the place of the occurrence and witnessed the aforesaid incident. The aforesaid act of the Respondent constitutes commission of corrupt practices of bribery as defined under Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 14. This entire incident was reported to the Election Agent of the Petitioner on 3.4.2006 by Smti. Mridulena Changa who was present at the place of the occurrence and witnessed the aforesaid incident. The aforesaid act of the Respondent constitutes commission of corrupt practices of bribery as defined under Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 14. That on the date of poll, i.e. on 3.4.2006 the Respondent organized a public feast at a quarter belonging to a garden employee of Namrup Tea Estate situated adjacent to the Namrup Tea Estate Lower Primary School where Polling Station No. 88 of No. 120 Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency was situated. The Respondent personally came to the aforesaid place alongwith her supporter Smti. Runu Arandhara, who is the President of the Dibrugarh Zilla Parishad at about 10 A.M. and inaugurated the feast. Voters of Polling Station for 88 of No. 120 Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency who had come to cast their votes and Ors. who had already cast their votes were invited by the Respondent to have meal at the said public feast organized by hen Congress Party Workers were entrusted and given money by the Respondent to conduct the feast and to fed the voters. The Respondent requested the voters present there to have their meal and to cast their votes in her favour. The voters who had already cast their votes were also treated at the public feast organized by the Respondent as a reward for having voted for her. The Respondent went away at about 10.30 A.M. and returned to the same place at about 3 P.M. again and requested the voters assembled at the place to take food at the public feast organized by her and to vote for her in return. The entire incident was witnessed amongst Ors. by Sri Rajen Rajput and his wife-Smti. Saraswati Rajput, Sri Biresh Karmakar and Sri lianu Kumar who were also requested by Respondent to take meal and cast votes in her favour. Sri Bulon Saikia, a media personnel as well as one Sri Ujjal Buragohain who was present in the Polling Station area on behalf of the Petitioner had also personally witnessed the Respondent personally including the voters to vote for her after taking meal and also rewarding the voters for having voted for her at the aforesaid public feast organized by her. The entire incident was reported to your Petitioner by the aforesaid persons. The aforesaid Act of the Respondent constitutes commission of corrupt practice of bribery as defined under Section 123(1)(A)(b) and 123(1)(A)b)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 15. That Sri Hiranya Mantri, the election agent of the Respondent came to the labour line of Desam Tea Estate situated near the playground of Desam Tea Estate at about 4 P.M. on 31.3.2006. He was accompanied by other Congress party workers who hid alongwith the Respondent herself visited the same place trying to distribute money to the voters at 12 Noon. On his arrival at 4 P.M. Sri Hiranya Mantri approached one Dipu Nimolia, a local resident and a voter under Polling Station 31 of No. 120 Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency asking him to fetch one Sri Suresh Tappo. Thus on being requested by Sri Dipu Nirimolia Sri Suresh Tappo along with two other voters Smti. Mridulena Changa and Smti Rajani Lakra met Sri Hiranya Mantri, the election agent of the Respondent at about 4.15 P.M. At that Sri Hiranya Mantri offered Rs. 500/- each to Sri Dipu Nirmolia, Sri Suresh Tappo asking them to cast their own as well as the votes of their respective family members in favour of the Respondent. Sri Hiranya Mantri also offered Rs. 500/- each to Smti. Mridulena Changa and Smti Rajani Lakra asking them to cast their votes in favour of the Respondent. This entire incident was reported to the Election Agent of the Petitioner by Smt. Mridulena Changa on 3.4.2006. The aforesaid act of the election of the Respondent constitutes commission of corrupt practice of bribery as defined under Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 16. That Sri Hiranya Mantri, the election agent of the Respondent accompanied by Sri Rajen Lahon, a worker and supported of the Respondent, came to Chakalia Harimandir at Panibura Village on 1.4.2006 at about 1.30 P.M. The voters in the adjoining areas are enrolled under Polling Station Nos. 13 and 14 of No. 120 Niaharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency. On reaching the place Sri Hiranya Mantri met Sri Niran Borah, Sri Kalyan Borah, Sr Bipul Borah, Sri Budheswar Konwar and Ors. and offered Rs. 500/- each to them inducing them to vote for the Respondent in the election. 13 and 14 of No. 120 Niaharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency. On reaching the place Sri Hiranya Mantri met Sri Niran Borah, Sri Kalyan Borah, Sr Bipul Borah, Sri Budheswar Konwar and Ors. and offered Rs. 500/- each to them inducing them to vote for the Respondent in the election. This incident was reported to the election agent of the Petitioner by Sri Niran Borah on 2.4.2006. The aforesaid act of the election agent of the Respondent constitutes commission of corrupt practice of bribery as defined under Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 17. That Sri Hiranya Mantri, the election agent of the Respondent accompanied by Sri Rajen Lahon, a worker and supporter of the Respondent, came to Nabajyoti L.P. School premises at Panibura Pathar Village on 1.4.2006 at about 2.30 RM. where they met Sri Rajesh Mallik, Sri Banshidhar Mallik, Smti. Geetanjali Tassa, Sri Amrit Chawra, Sri Mukhlal Konda and Ors. and offered than Rs. 500/- each inducing them to vote for the Respondent on the date of poll. The voters of this locality are enrolled under Polling Station Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of No. 120 Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency. This act of the election agent of the Respondent was reported to the election agent of the Petitioner by Smti Geetanjali Tassa and her father Sri Debaru Tasfea on 2.4.2006. The aforesaid act of the election agent of the Respondent constitutes commission of corrupt practice of bribery as defined under Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. WRITTEN STATEMENT 11. In the written statement filed by the Respondent, she has denied the allegations made in the election petition. It has been contended that the election petition being devoid of basic facts, material facts and material particulars and having not disclosed any cause of action, no interference is called for of the election of the Respondent. In paragraphs 11 to 17 of the written statement, the Respondent has dealt with the allegations made in paragraph 11 to 17 of the election petition quoted above. It is a case of categorical denial on the part of the Respondent. According to her the facts alleged in the election petition are totally baseless and false. In paragraphs 11 to 17 of the written statement, the Respondent has dealt with the allegations made in paragraph 11 to 17 of the election petition quoted above. It is a case of categorical denial on the part of the Respondent. According to her the facts alleged in the election petition are totally baseless and false. Her case is that, she and/or her election agent did not indulge in any corrupt practice of bribery as defined under Section 123(1) of the Act and that there is no iota of truth in the allegation made against her and her election agent. ISSUES 12. On the basis of the materials on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the following issues were framed by order dated 27.9.2006. 1. Whether the present Election Petition is 2. Whether there is any cause of action for the Election Petition? 3. Whether the Election Petition has presented the Election Petition in accordance with and as required under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Conduct of the Election Rules, 1961 and the Gauhati High Court Rules? 4. Whether the security deposit has been made in compliance with the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Gauhati High Court Rules? 5. Whether the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 81,82 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 6. Whether the election Petitioner has presented the Election Petition disclosing the ingredients of Section 100 read with Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for declaring the Election of the returned candidate/Respondent to be void? 7. Whether the Respondent committed the corrupt practice of 'Bribery' by distributing money to the voters on 29.03.06 at the market area of Lengharjan Tea Estate as alleged in Paragraph 11 of the Election Petition? 8. Whether the Respondent committed the corrupt practice of 'Bribery' by distributing money to the voters on 29.03.06 at Line No. 9, Baghmara Village as alleged in Paragraph 12 of the Election Petition? 9. Whether the Respondent committed the corrupt practice of 'Bribery' by distributing money to the voters on 31.03.06 at the Labour Line of Desam Tea Estate as alleged in Paragraph 13 of the Election Petition? 10. 9. Whether the Respondent committed the corrupt practice of 'Bribery' by distributing money to the voters on 31.03.06 at the Labour Line of Desam Tea Estate as alleged in Paragraph 13 of the Election Petition? 10. Whether the Respondent committed the corrupt practice by organising feast at Namrup Tea Estate on 03.04.2006 for the voters of the constituency as alleged in Paragraph 14 of the Election Petition? 11. Whether Shri Hiranya Mantri, the Election Agent of the Respondent, committed the corrupt practice of 'Bribery' by offering money to the voters on 31.03.06 at Labour Line of Desam Tea Estate as alleged in Paragraph 15 of the Election Petition? 12. Whether Shri Hiranya Mantri, the Election Agent of the Respondent, committed the corrupt practice of 'Bribery' by offering money to the voters of the constituency on 01.04.06 at Chakalia Harimandir of Panibura village as alleged in Paragraph 16 of the Election Petition? 13. Whether Shri Hiranya Mantri, the Election Agent of the Respondent, committed the corrupt practice of 'Bribery' by offering money to the voters of the constituency on 01.04.06 at Nabajyoti L.P. School premises of Panibura Pathar village as alleged in Paragraph 17 of the Election Petition? 14. Whether the commission of corrupt practice of 'Bribery' by the Respondent, the returned candidate, and/or her election agent has rendered the election of the Respondent from No. 120 Naharkatia Legislative Assembly Constituency liable to be declared void. 15. Whether an order under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act should be made against the Respondent, Smti. Pranati Phukan recording finding that charge of corrupt practice of bribery has been proved against her and as to whether on the basis of the said finding she should be debarred from contesting election for forthcoming 6 (six) years. WITNESSES 13. After framing of the issues as aforesaid, the Petitioner adduced evidence of himself and 29 Ors. including his election agent in the form of affidavits by each one of them. Thus, the Petitioner in support of his case has examined altogether 30 witnesses including himself and his election agent as P.W. 1 to P.W. 30. On the other hand, the Respondent has examined himself and her election agent as R.W. 1 and R.W. 2. They have adduced evidence m the form of affidavits. 14. While P.W. 1 is the election Petitioner himself, the P.W. 30 is his election agent. On the other hand, the Respondent has examined himself and her election agent as R.W. 1 and R.W. 2. They have adduced evidence m the form of affidavits. 14. While P.W. 1 is the election Petitioner himself, the P.W. 30 is his election agent. While they have adduced evidence covering the allegations made in the election petition, the P.W. 2 to 7 have stated about the allegations pertaining to issue No. 10. The P.W. 9 to 12 have stated about the allegations pertaining to issue No. 9 and 11 and the P.W. No. 13 to 16 have stated about the allegations pertaining to issue No. 13. The statements made by P.W. 17 to 20 pertain to the allegations made forming issue No. 12. Further, while the P.W. 22 to 25 have stated the facts pertaining to issue No. 7, the P.W. 26 to 29 have stated the facts pertaining issue No. 8. 15. Although the Respondent, by her application filed on 3.11.2006 prayed for allowing her to examine the witnesses named in the application numbering 9, but except 2, who are the Respondent herself and her election agent, she has not examined any one else. EVIDENCE 16. I now proceed to see the evidence on record adduced by both the parties. EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER 17. P.W. 1 is the election petitioner who in his evidence in affidavit has reiterated his case in the election petition. In his evidence, while reiterating the statements made in the election petition, he has stated that the incidents relating to corrupt practice in which the respondent herself and her election agent were involved reported to him by his election agent and Ors.. In his evidence, he has named some of the PWs alongwith his election agent, who reportedly informed him about the incidents narrated in the election petition. He has stated that his election agent (P.W. 30) lodged complaint with the Circle Officer and constituency Magistrate on 7 According to him, the incidents narrated amounting to commission of corrupt practice indulged in by the respondent and her election agent has rendered her election void. The affidavit in evidence and the statements made therein have been verified by the petitioner as true to his knowledge. 18. In the cross examination (CE), the Petitioner has admitted that he was a congressman and so was his election agent. The affidavit in evidence and the statements made therein have been verified by the petitioner as true to his knowledge. 18. In the cross examination (CE), the Petitioner has admitted that he was a congressman and so was his election agent. In fact, he was holding the portfolio of Vice President of Dibrugarh District Congress Committee. He resigned from the Congress party and contested the election as an independent candidate on public demand. He has stated in CE that his election agent used to attend the constituency meetings whenever held. On being asked, he could not recollect the name of the observer, who was deputed in the constituency by the Election Commissioner. He has also stated that his election agent had submitted daily reports regarding expenses and all other incidental matters, like holding of office, electioneering etc. to the Returning Officer. His further statement is that whenever his election agent had gone to Dibrugarh, he had met the observer. The Petitioner has stated in CE that he had lodged complaints to the observer regarding malpractices adopted by the Respondent and her election agent and workers. He has further stated that he had also lodged written complaints with the Returning Officer and the Chief Election Commissioner and that the returning officer acknowledged receipt of the written complaints with due endorsement. 19. In his CE the Petitioner has further stated that as regards allegation made in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the election petition, he came to know about the incidents narrated therein from his election agent. As regards the incident narrated in paragraph 11, he has stated that he came to know about the same after the election was over. As regards the incident narrated in paragraph 14 of the election petition, his stand is that he came to know about the same through one Sri Ujjal Buragohain, who is P.W. 7 and the information was fiimished to him on the day of the election He has further stated in his CE that on the day of election he could cover about 50% of. the polling stations. During election campaign, he received certain complaints regarding malpractices of the Respondent and he fumished the information to his election agent. He has stated that he did not see the malpractices committed by the Respondent personally, but derived the information from Ors.. 20. the polling stations. During election campaign, he received certain complaints regarding malpractices of the Respondent and he fumished the information to his election agent. He has stated that he did not see the malpractices committed by the Respondent personally, but derived the information from Ors.. 20. As against the previous statement of lodging complaints with the authorities including the Election Officer, in the later part of CE, the Petitioner has stated that he personally did not file any complaint to the Returning Officer. He has stated that when the complaints lodged with the returning officer, Police Station and the Chief Election Commissioner, etc. did not yield any result, he alongwith his party workers summarized the same and sent again on 7.4.2006 enclosing therewith all the documents. The summary was furnished to the Returning Officer. His statement is that time-to-time intimations were sent to all the authorities, but he has admitted that the same is not mentioned in the election petition. 21. To the specific suggestion made that he has made false statements in paragraphs 14 to 17 of the election petition and that there was no corrupt practice on the part of the Respondent, he has denied the same. He has also denied that he or his election agent did not lodge any complaint either during election campaign or on the day of election. 22. P.W. 30 is the election agent of the Petitioner. He in his evidence in affidavit has stated that he had personally supervised the election campaign of the Petitioner. He has stated that he had personally supervised the election campaign at the grass root level monitoring and leading the campaign for the Petitioner and the members of the public including the voters, who had personally witnessed several such incidents of corrupt practice, informed him of the corrupt practice of bribery committed by the Respondent. He has also reiterated the statements made in the election petition referring to the incidents narrated therein. He has also named some of the P.Ws, who had allegedly seen the incidents of corrupt practice and as to how they narrated the same to him. As in the case of the Petitioner, the P.W. 30 has also verified the statements made in evidence in affidavit as true to his knowledge. 23. He has also named some of the P.Ws, who had allegedly seen the incidents of corrupt practice and as to how they narrated the same to him. As in the case of the Petitioner, the P.W. 30 has also verified the statements made in evidence in affidavit as true to his knowledge. 23. In the CE, he has also admitted that he was in the Congress party and both, he and the Petitioner resigned from the Congress. He has stated that during the election campaign, which started from 18th of March, 2006, he attended the meetings relating to code of conduct etc. organized by the Election Commission and the Returning Officer. He has also admitted that in the meeting difficulties being faced by the candidates or the election agents as well as the irregularities committed were discussed. He did not remember as to how many polling stations he had visited during election campaign. According to him, the illegalities committed by the Respondent were reported to the. constituency Magistrate namely Sri Dhrubajyoti Borah, Init he did not take any action. His further statement is that the irregularities were also brought to the notice of the Chief Election Commissioner, the Chief Election Officer of the State, the District Returning Officer and Constituency Magistrate and that the irregularities were also discussed in the meeting held by the election officer. 24. P.W. 30, in his CE has categorically stated that he had lodged the complaints regarding irregularities in writing and the same were duly acknowledged with due endorsement To the specific question put, he has stated that he is in possession of the written complaints, but could not annex the same alongwith the election petition as the same had to be filed hurriedly. He has stated that on 29.3.2006, the Petitioner organized a meeting at Lengharjan at about 6.30 PM, which was preceded by a meeting of the Respondent about an hour before. As to whether, the incident of 29.3.2006 in the meeting of the Respondent was reported to the Petitioner, he has stated in the negative. He has further stated that all the complaints as mentioned in the election petition had been registered in the Complaint Registrar and that the said Register has not been submitted to the Court. As to whether, the incident of 29.3.2006 in the meeting of the Respondent was reported to the Petitioner, he has stated in the negative. He has further stated that all the complaints as mentioned in the election petition had been registered in the Complaint Registrar and that the said Register has not been submitted to the Court. According to him, he had reported the incident of feast in writing to the constituency Magistrate and that he also reported the incident to Sri Satyajit Natii, DSP, Namrup, over telephone. He has admitted that the incident narrated in the election petition and in his affidavit relating corrupt practices were not witnessed by him personally and that the same are on the basis of the reports received by him and incorporated in the Complaint Register. He has stated that he was in charge of the Complaint Register alongwith Sri Lochon Gogoi and Bipul Bhagawati. He has also admitted that the Petitioner himself did not witness the corrupt practices personally. According to him, after getting the information and report regarding corrupt practices of 3rd of April, he sent fax messages to the Chief Election Commission of India, Chief Election Officer of the State and the Returning Officer, Dibrugarh District. He has stated that he had sent the complaints by post also. He admits that the copies thereof have not been produced before the Court. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ISSUE No. 10 25. As stated above, P.W. 2 to 7 have made statements relating to the issue No. 10 based on the alleged incidents, find mention in paragraph 14 of the election petition. P.W. 2, in his evidence in chief has stated that he is an active worker of the INC for about last 30 years. He is a voter in polling station No. 88 of the constituency. He states that when he was coming from the polling station after casting his votes, he saw the Respondent alongwith one Smt Runu Arandhara, aknown Congress leader and President of Dibrugarh Zilla Parishad, in a garden quarter of Namrup Tea Estate situated adjacent to the polling station (about 40 ft. away). He quarter belongs to one Sri Ashish Nath an LP school teacher. He could see that the Respondent was standing at the Courtyard of the said quarter and requesting the people to participate at the feast organized by her and to cast their votes in her favour. away). He quarter belongs to one Sri Ashish Nath an LP school teacher. He could see that the Respondent was standing at the Courtyard of the said quarter and requesting the people to participate at the feast organized by her and to cast their votes in her favour. He purportedly objected to the proposal of the Respondent and so also organizing the feast by her. He also met the P.W. 7 and communicated with him regarding the incident. He also saw Sri Bulan Saikia, P.W. 6 making videography of the incident. Subsequently, the incident was intimated to the Petitioner. 26. In the CE, he has stated that he did not ask Sri Ashish Nag about the purpose of the gathering as he could see for himself as to what was happening. He did not talk to the Respondent. As to the specific question as to whether he had lodged any complaint with the authorities of the FNC, and so also with the Presiding Officer of the polling station, he has replied in the negative. He has also stated that he did not lodge any complaint with the Returning Officer or the Election Observer. 27. P.W. 3, is also a voter of the same polling station. He has also stated the same thing as that of the P.W. 2, who belongs to INC and the President of Santipur Gaon Panchayat. In the CE, he has stated that, he had seen the Respondent between 3 to 4 PM and did not see her before that. He does not remember as to in what type of vehicle, she had come. According to him, he was also requested to take part in the feast offered by her. He has stated that the Respondent offered the feast and requested the people to cast their votes in her favour. According to him, witnessing the incident he had lodged complaint with Sri Dhiraj Majhi, who was also a candidate. 28. P.W. 4, is also a voter of polling station No. 88. She has also stated about the feast allegedly offered by the Respondent. In her CE, she has stated that she does not know how many candidates contested the election and also as to how many parties were involved. She also does not know how many impendent candidates were in the fray. She does not know what "candidate" and "party" mean. She has also stated about the feast allegedly offered by the Respondent. In her CE, she has stated that she does not know how many candidates contested the election and also as to how many parties were involved. She also does not know how many impendent candidates were in the fray. She does not know what "candidate" and "party" mean. She has stated that, she had come to Guwahati alongwith her husband Sri Birsh Karmakar i.e. P.W.3. 29. P.W. 5, in his deposition has stated that he also witnessed the incident of 3.4.2006, in which the Respondent requested the people to have their lunch in the quarter of said Sri Ashish Nag and then to cast vote in her favour. In his CE, he has stated that he does not know as to how many parties were involved in the election. He says that he does not know, which candidate belonged to which party. 30. P.W. 6, Sri Bulan Saikia has deposed that he is a Freelance Journalist, since his student days. He started publishing a weekly newspaper from Naharkatia in the name and style of "Sadiniya Sombar". However, due to financial condition, he had to close down the publication after about 6 months. He was also appointed as local correspondents of "Ajir Dainik Batori" and he continued with the assignment till October, 2006. Thereafter, he started working for Anr. Assamese daily newspaper "Edinor Sombad" published simultaneously from Guwahati and Dibmgaih. He has stated that during the last assembly election for Assam Legislative Assembly, he has covered Naharkatia constituency as the corRespondent and that he used to send video clips of the election events to different local cable TV channels of Tinsukia and Dibrugarh. 31. P.W. 6, in his deposition has further stated that on 3.4.2006, he received the information regarding hosting of feast by the Respondent at a garden quarter adjacent to polling station No. 88. On receipt of the information he arrived at the place at about 9.30 am and could see the public feast being organized in the aforementioned garden quarter situated at a distance of about 40 ft. from polling station No. 88. He could see the Respondent and Smt. Runu Arandhara and some other persons in the said garden quarter around 10 am and the Respondent requesting the voters to cast their votes in her favour and participate in the feast organized by her. from polling station No. 88. He could see the Respondent and Smt. Runu Arandhara and some other persons in the said garden quarter around 10 am and the Respondent requesting the voters to cast their votes in her favour and participate in the feast organized by her. He saw some voters participating in the feast. He could also see Hari Bagh, P.W. 2 protesting against hosting of feast by the Respondent. According to him, the Respondent left the place at about 10.45 AM. He also left the place to cover some other polling stations and on return to polling station No. 88 at about 2 PM, he found that the feast was till going on. He recorded the event in his video camera. Later on he converted the video footage into Compact Disc Recordable Media (CD) without editing. According to him, he has preserved the Mini DV Cassette, in which the original recording of the incident was made. This witness has stated that the original Mini DV Cassette has been produced before the Court in sealed cover. According to him after the date of the poll, he narrated the incident to the Respondent. 32. In CE, he has stated that on the date of election he had met 3 candidates, who are the Petitioner, Sri Dibya Konwar and the Respondent. He has stated that as a journalist, he put question to Dibya Konwar, but did not put any to the Respondent. He also did not talk to Smt. Runu Arandhara accompanying the Respondent. He has stated that he does not know the name of the owner of the quarter. According to him, he had enquired from many people gathered as to who had arranged the feast, but he does not remember their names. He has named P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 with whom also he discussed the matter. He has stated that at that time he could not take photograph, as he did not carry his camera. After coming back home he picked up his camera and went again to the polling station and took photographs at about 2 PM. He has named P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 with whom also he discussed the matter. He has stated that at that time he could not take photograph, as he did not carry his camera. After coming back home he picked up his camera and went again to the polling station and took photographs at about 2 PM. He has stated that the report furnished by him regarding the feast was published in the newspaper namely Dainik Batori, but has stated that copy of the same is not enclosed alongwith his affidavit in examination in chief He has stated that he has not seen arrangement of such feast in any other polling stations. 33. On being asked, P.W. 6 has stated that he did not lodge any complaint regarding the feast with any authority. Answering the particular suggestion, he has denied that the Mini DV Cassette (Ext. 1) does not pertain to the date and the constituency and thus does not have anything to do with the alleged incident. According to him, he had discussed the incident relating to hosting of feast by the Respondent in the press club in presence of tile President and the Secretary, but no one suggested him to file any complaint or to give evidence in case of any election petition. He has also stated that he did not lodge any complaint with the Petitioner, but later on the Petitioner having come to know about the incident asked for the photographs. He states that he does not know as to whether the Petitioner or his election agent lodged any complaint after receiving the photographs. 34. P.W. 7, is Sri Ujjal Buragohain, who has also stated about the incident of feast in polling station No. 88. He has stated about the arrival of the Respondent alongwith Smt. Runu Arandhara and the request being made to cast votes in her favour and to participate in the feast organized in the adjacent quarter of Sri Ashish Nag. According to him, he had seen voters taking part in the feast. He states that he raised objection to the Respondent for hosting such feast. He has stated that he had lodged complaint with the DSP Sri S. Natii on his arrival in the polling station at about 12 noon. According to him, said Sri Nath did not take any action. He states that he raised objection to the Respondent for hosting such feast. He has stated that he had lodged complaint with the DSP Sri S. Natii on his arrival in the polling station at about 12 noon. According to him, said Sri Nath did not take any action. He had seen P.W. 6 coming to the place about 2 PM and the video recording being done by him. The Respondent once again came to the place at about 3 PM and repeated the same request to the voters. 35. In the CE, he has stated that he had cast his vote at about 4 PM and that he was a supporter of the Petitioner. He has stated that he was confined to the particular polling station only and did not visit any other polling station on the date of election. According to him, he did not see any official of the election department in the polling station. He had informed the incident to P.W. 6, the Petitioner and his election agent. He states that he had furnished the information through his mobile bearing No. 9435334115. He has stated that he did not inform any other authority including the election officials about the incident. Although he did not go inside the polling station, but he knew that inside the polling station, couple officials were there. He had stated that outside the polling station couple of security personnel were there but he did not lodge any complaint with any one of them. He also did not lodge any complaint with the DSP, who had visited the place. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ISSUE Nos. 9 AND 11 36. P.Ws. 8 to 12 and P.W. 21 have deposed pertaining to the incident finds mention in issue Nos. 9 and 11. P.W. 8 is also a voter. He is the father of P.W. 9 Miss. Mridulena Changa In his evidence in affidavit, he has stated that on 31.3.2006, on his return to home at about 1 PM, his daughter Mridulena informed him that about 12 noon, the Respondent came to the play ground of Desam Tea Estate near the labour line and offered money to various voters including Suresh Toppo, P.W. 10. Thereafter at about 4.15 PM, he met P.W. 12, P.W. 10 and P.W. 21, who were going to meet I liranya Mantri, the election agent of the Respondent. Thereafter at about 4.15 PM, he met P.W. 12, P.W. 10 and P.W. 21, who were going to meet I liranya Mantri, the election agent of the Respondent. Seen them Sri Hiranya Mantri asked to cast votes in favour of the Respondent and offered each one of them Rs. 500/-. All of them objected to the same and seeing their mood, Sri Mantri alongwith his companions hurriedly left the place in their vehicle. He has stated that subsequently he narrated the incident to P.W. 30, the election agent of the Petitioner. 37. In his CE, he has stated that he had gone to the polling station at about 2 PM alongwith his daughter Mridulena, who is not a voter. After casting his vote, he went back home and thereafter again came back and roamed around. He was outside the polling station. He has stated that the election agent of the Respondent visited the Tea estate on 31.3.2006 at about 4 PM. He does not remember the dates of earlier visits of Hiranya Mantri. He has stated that he does not know as to whether money could be paid or not. He did not report the incident to anyone. He has denied the suggestion made that he has deposed falsely. 38. P.W. 9, is the daughter of P.W. 8. In her evidence in affidavit, she has stated the same thing like that of her father. In CE, she has stated that she plays football and she represents Naharkatia Sports Association of which the Petitioner is the President. She has stated that the Respondent had visited the Tea Estate on 31.3.2006 and during her visit she was at her home. To a specific question as to how many people received money from Sri Montri, she has stated that she did not notice the same. She has stated that she was also offered money, which she refused. According to her, she and other people objected to offering of money. As in the case of other witnesses she also did not report the incident to anyone including the Petitioner. 39. P.W. 10 is Sri Suresh Toppo. He has also deposed the incident of offering money by Sri Hiranya Montri, the election agent of the Respondent to which he had objected. In CE, he has stated that there were about 12 to 15 people when the money was being offered. 39. P.W. 10 is Sri Suresh Toppo. He has also deposed the incident of offering money by Sri Hiranya Montri, the election agent of the Respondent to which he had objected. In CE, he has stated that there were about 12 to 15 people when the money was being offered. The Respondent asked him to vote in her favour by offering money, which he refused. Thereafter, being ashamed of, she left the place. He did not report the incident to anyone else except the election agent of the Petitioner. He reported the incident after three days of the election. 40. P.W. 11 is Sri Budhsai Barowa, who is a voter. He has also stated the same thing like that of the other witnesses. Hiranya Montri offered him Rs. 500/- with the request to cast vote in favour of the Respondent. The persons who were present, objected to the same and seeing the mood, Hiranya left the place. He reported the incident to the Petitioner and his election agent. In CE, he has stated that he has forgotten the names of the other candidate and that he did not see any other candidate except the Respondent. He has stated that the Respondent did not offer money to him but offered to other people, who refused to accept. 41. P.W. 12 is Sri Dipu Nirmojia and he has also stated about offering of money by Sri Hiranya Montri. According to him, he repeated the incident both to the Petitioner and his election agent. He has named the other witnesses present in the scene. In CE, he has stated that he had come to the Tea Estate on the date of the incident and that except the incident of 31.32006, he did not notice any other such incident. He has stated that he met Hiranya Montri at about 4 PM. After meeting some of his students, he left the dace at about 4.30 PM, seeing the mood among the people regarding transaction of mnoney. He has stated that he was not offered money. He did not report the incident to any other authority except the election agent of the Petitioner. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ISSUE No. 13 42. P.Ws. 13 to 16 have deposed pertaining to the incident finds mention in issue No. 13. He has stated that he was not offered money. He did not report the incident to any other authority except the election agent of the Petitioner. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ISSUE No. 13 42. P.Ws. 13 to 16 have deposed pertaining to the incident finds mention in issue No. 13. P.W. 13 is Sri Mukhlal Kanda, He in his evidence in affidavit has stated that on 1.4.2006 at about 2 PM, he alongwith one Sri Amrit Mandal went to the residence of one Sri Banshidhar Mallik at Panibulra Pathar Village where they met Sri Debaru Tassa, his daughter Smt. Gitanjali Tassa, Sri Bijay Keot and few other villagers. Sri Banshidhar told them that Sri Hiranya Montri, the election agent of the Respondent would come and hold a meeting. Sri Montri came to the place at about 2.30 PM alongwith Sri Rajen Lahon a known Congress Worker. They arrived at the premises of Nabajyoti LP School adjacent to the residence of Sri Bangshidhar. The P.W. 13 alongwith Ors. went to the place and they were offered Rs. 500/- each by Sri Montri with the request to cast their votes in favour of the Respondent. Debaru Tassa objected to the same. Later on the P.W. met Sri Shrutikar, the election agent of the Petitioner and narrated the incident. 43. In his CE he has stated that in the meeting Congress workers distributed money and the amount was Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/-. He also accepted the money. However, on being objected to by Sri Debaru, he returned the same. He did not lodge complaint with, any other authority except reporting the same to the election agent of the Petitioner. 44. P.W. 14 is Sri Amrit Mandal. He has also stated the same thing as that of P.W. 13. He reported the incident to the Petitioner and his election agent. In his CE, he has stated that he was not aware, if the political parties and the candidates had organized any meeting. He also could not say as whether the Respondent had come for any meeting and so also as to whether any Congress worker had come. 45. P.W. 15 is Sri Debaru Tassa. He in his evidence in affidavit has reiterated the stand of the other witnesses relating to the particular incident. According to him, Sri Hiranya Montri offered Rs. He also could not say as whether the Respondent had come for any meeting and so also as to whether any Congress worker had come. 45. P.W. 15 is Sri Debaru Tassa. He in his evidence in affidavit has reiterated the stand of the other witnesses relating to the particular incident. According to him, Sri Hiranya Montri offered Rs. 500/- to all of them with the request to cast votes in favour of the Respondent, to which he raised objection. Later on they met the Petitioner and his election agent and narrated the entire incident During CE, he has stated that he is an active worker of the Congress Party and he had worked for the Respondent and he attended the meetings organized by her. As regards the particular meeting, he has stated that such meeting could not have been organized as the polling was within 48 hrs. While stating about the Congress workers, who met the people, he has stated that all of them were not Congress workers and that there were members of other political parties also. He has stated that the Respondent did not come to the meeting. 46. This P.W. in his CE has stated that he did not lodge any complaint with the Congress higher-ups, but on the next day he lodged a complaint with the Naharkatia Block Congress Committee. He did not feel it necessary to lodge any complaint with the election officer but he narrated the fact to the election agent of the Petitioner. He has stated that since Sri Shrutikar, the election agent of the Petitioner was a Congress worker, he was acting against the interest of the Congress party by extending support to the Petitioner. He has further stated that he reported the incident to Dr. Jayanta Gogoi, District Congress President only on 11.5.2006 i.e. the date of counting of votes. His further statement is that he had met many Congress workers during the period from the date of incident to the date of counting and narrated the incident to them. He has stated that he had also informed the incident to one Sri Paban Singh Ghatowar. 47. P.W. 16 is Miss Gitali Tassa, daughter of P.W. 15. His further statement is that he had met many Congress workers during the period from the date of incident to the date of counting and narrated the incident to them. He has stated that he had also informed the incident to one Sri Paban Singh Ghatowar. 47. P.W. 16 is Miss Gitali Tassa, daughter of P.W. 15. In her evidence in affidavit, she has stated about the incident of offering money by the election agent of the Respondent and her reporting of the incident to the Petitioner and his election agent. In CE, she has stated that in the particular meeting, the Respondent was not present and that the money was returned on objection being raised by her father. She did not lodge any complaint with any authority about the incident including the office bearers of the Congress party in the area. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ISSUE No. 12 48. P.Ws. 17 to 20 have deposed pertaining to the incident finds mention in issue No. 12. P.W.17 is Sri Buddheswar Konwar, who is a voter of polling station No. 14. He in his evidence in affidavit has stated that on 1.4.2006 at about 1 PM, he alongwith his CO-villager Sri Niran Bora and Ors. went to Chakalia Harimandir. On the previous day i.e. 31.3.2006, Sri Rajen Lahon, a local Congress leader had informea the villagers that a Congress meeting would be held at Chakalia Harimandir on 1.4.2006 at 1 PM. At about 1.30 PM Sri Rajen Lahon accompanied by the election agent of the Respondent came to the place and requested the gathering to cast their votes in favour of the Respondent and offered Rs. 500/- each. The P.W. informed the incident to the election agent of the Petitioner on 2.4.2006. 49. In the CE, he has stated that he did not attend any meeting except the one about which he has mentioned in the affidavit in evidence. According to him, money distributed was to the tune of Rs. 500/- to 1000/-. He reported the incident to Sri Niran Bora, P.W. 19. In the meeting, he did not see the Respondent. He has stated that he was not offered money. Although, he had raised objection to distribution of money, Sri Hiranya Montri did not tell him anything. According to him, money distributed was to the tune of Rs. 500/- to 1000/-. He reported the incident to Sri Niran Bora, P.W. 19. In the meeting, he did not see the Respondent. He has stated that he was not offered money. Although, he had raised objection to distribution of money, Sri Hiranya Montri did not tell him anything. He has stated that he did not lodge any complaint about the incident to any election officials, but discussed about the same with P.W. 19 on the following day. 50. P.W. 18 is Sri Kalyan Bora, who in his evidence in affidavit has stated the same thing. He has stated that he informed the incident to the Petitioner and his election agent. In CE, he has stated that he did not attend the meetings organized by the political parties and the candidates. 51. P.W. 19 is Sri Niran Bora, who is also a voter of the same polling station. He has also stated the same thing in his evidence in affidavit. He informed the election agent of the Petitioner about the incident. In CE, he has stated that he has forgotten the names of the independent candidates and that earlier he was a member of CPM. As regards attending the meetings, he has stated that the only meeting attended by him was the one relating to the incident. He raised objection to distribution of money. He has named Sri Bipul Bora and Mangala Bora, who took money, but on his persuasion, they returned the same. He reported the incident to Sri Manoj Shrutikar and discussed about the same with his party workers. He also reported the incident to one Sri Kashi Tassa. 52. P.W. 20 is Sri Bipul Bora, who has also deposed in respect of the aforesaid incident. He has stated that he informed Sri Shrutikar about the incident. In CE, he has stated that he did not attend any meeting organized by the candidates. He has stated that he received money offered by Sri Hiranya Montri. He has named the other witnesses who were present in the meeting. He does not remember as to how many people were present in the meeting. He has stated that he was not told about the purpose of the money being paid. He has stated that he received money offered by Sri Hiranya Montri. He has named the other witnesses who were present in the meeting. He does not remember as to how many people were present in the meeting. He has stated that he was not told about the purpose of the money being paid. He has stated that he himself did not informs Sri Shrutikar about the incident but conveyed the same through Sri Niran Bora i.e. the P.W. 19. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ISSUE No. 7 53. P.Ws. 22 to 25 have deposed pertaining to the incident finds mention in issue No. 7. P.W. 22 is Sri Baptu Orang. He in his deposition has stated that he is a voter in polling station No. 38. On 29.3.2006, one Sri Nirmal Jojo, the Secretary of the Garden Labour Union informed the garden community that the Respondent would be coming to hold an election meeting at the market area of Langharjan Tea Estate in the evening. He alongwith some of his friends wait to the market area to attend the meeting. What he saw was that the Respondent arrived at the market area at about 5 PM and requested him and Ors. to cast their votes in her favour and offered the amount of Rs. 500/- each. He narrated the incident to the election agent of the Petitioner. 54. In CE, he has stated that he did not attend any meeting except the one relating to the incident. He has stated that he had accepted the money knowing it fully well that such acceptance was illegal. He did not report the incident to anyone. He has stated that Sri Manoj Shrutikar is his neighbour and it is he who took him to Dibrugarh for the purpose of swering the affidavit. 55. P.W. 23 is Miss Gita Romonia. She has also stated about the incident. According to her she narrated the incident to Sri Shrutikar as well as the Petitioner. In CE, she has stated that except the meeting relating to the incident, she did not attend any other meeting. She has stated that the money was not distributed during the meeting, but after the meeting was over. She does not know as to whether any objection was raised or not. The people did not lodge any complaint with any authority and the P.W. also did not lodge any complaint. She has stated that the money was not distributed during the meeting, but after the meeting was over. She does not know as to whether any objection was raised or not. The people did not lodge any complaint with any authority and the P.W. also did not lodge any complaint. She has stated that she has deposed on being asked by the election agent of the Petitioner and that her mother has not come to depose. On re-examination, she has stated that she did not report the fact of taking money by her to Sri Shrutikar. 56. P.W. 24 is Sri Dipak Tanti, who also narrated the incident in his evidence in affidavit. He has stated that he narrated the incident to the Petitioner and his election agent after the election was over. In CE, he has stated that although he was present in the meeting he did not receive money and that he was also not offered. He has stated that he has not seen himself offering of money to Baptu Orang and Gita Romonia, but they reported the same to him. His further statement is that no body objected to offering of money by the Respondent. Except Sri Shrutikar, he did not report the incident to anyone else including the candidates and election officials. 57. P.W. 25, is Sri Ramu Ghosh, who is also a voter of the polling station. He has also stated about the incident with the statement that he reported the incident to the Petitioner and his election agent. In CE, he has stated that he does not remember holding of any meeting by any other candidate, except the one relating to the incident. He does not know as to whether Mahendra Dhadumia was a candidate or not. He also does not remember the election symbol of Sri Ram Rajkonwar, but he knows the symbol of Congress candidate. According to him the meeting was held at about 5 PM and after the meeting there were about 30 people including him and Smt. Gita Romonia, Baptu Orang and Dipak Tanti. He has stated that the money was offered after the meeting was over. He has stated that he had seen distribution of money, but he did not take. He was also not asked to take the money. 58. He has stated that the money was offered after the meeting was over. He has stated that he had seen distribution of money, but he did not take. He was also not asked to take the money. 58. In CE he has further stated that the Petitioner had come to the place at about 5.30 PM and there were about 40/50 people present. Gita Romonia, Baptu Orang and Dipak Tanti did not attend the meeting. He has stated that he reported the incident to the election agent of the Petitioner on 3rd April and that he did not report the incident to anyone else. He has stated that the affidavit in evidence was typed at the residence of the Petitioner. EVIDENCE RELATING TO ISSUE No. 8 59. P.Ws. 26 to 29 have deposed pertaining to the incident finds mention in issue 8. P.W. 26 is Sri Deba Tanti, who in his deposition has stated that on 29.3.2006, he alongwith Sri Bhupen Mech was standing by the side of M/s. Makum Motors, commonly known as Jeypore Petrol Pump. He saw the Respondent arriving at the spot in a vehicle alongwith her workers and security personnel. Seeing her arrival, the villagers including Smt. Dipali Mech, Smt. Rupali Hatimuria, Niraj Mech and Ors. assembled around her vehicle. The Respondents then urged all the persons present to vote in her favour and offered each of them Rs. 500/-. Later on the P W informed the entire incident to Sri Manoj Shrutikar, the election agent of the Petitioner. 60. In CE, he has stated that after the meeting, he was offered a Wine bottle by the Respondent and asked him to cast vote in her favour. He took the bottle and left the place. He did not report the incident to anyone else. 61. P.W. 27 is Smt. Rupali Hatimuria, who is also a voter of the polling station. She has also stated the same thing as that of P.W. 26 m her evidence in affidavit. Later on, she informed the incident to the Petitioner and his election agent. In CE, she has stated that although she had attended the meeting but has forgotten the day on which the meeting was held. She has stated that after the meeting she has not met Sri Msinoj Shrutikar. Later on, she informed the incident to the Petitioner and his election agent. In CE, she has stated that although she had attended the meeting but has forgotten the day on which the meeting was held. She has stated that after the meeting she has not met Sri Msinoj Shrutikar. She has stated that she had seen offering of money by the Respondent and giving the Wine bottle to Sri Deba Tanti, P.W. 26. She has stated that she did not report the incident to police officers or election officers. She does not remember the dates of meetings held by other candidates including the Petitioner. 62. P.W. 28 is Smt. Dipali Mech, who is also a voter of the same polling station. She in her evidence in affidavit has stated about the aforesaid incident. She informed the entire incident to the Petitioner and his election agent In CE, she has stated that she had worked for the Congress, but seeing the corrupt practices, she stopped working for the party. She has stated that after the meeting was over, the Respondent distributed money among the people. She could also see giving a Wine bottle to Sri Deba Tanti. According to her the incident occurred at about 9 PM. She has stated that she reported the incident to Sri Manoj Shrutikar on the day of the election and some Ors. reported to the Petitioner. She has stated that before the date of election, she did not report the incident to anyone. 63. P.W. 29 is Sri Bhupen Mech, who is also a voter. He has also deposed about the incident and informing the same to the Petitioner and his election agent. In CE, he has stated that he does not remember the other candidates held meetings. He has stated that in the meeting he could see Sri Prafulla Tanti, Budhu Mura, Anami Tanti, Kanta Tanti, Rupali Hatimuria, Dipali Mech, Deba Tanti etc. He has stated that Kanta Tanti is the Line Sardar. She stated that once the lecture was over, the Respondent distributed money to the people and requested to cast their votes in her favour. According to her the people gathered took advantage of the situation and collected money and Wine bottles. He has stated that he refused to accept money, but did not raise any objection. He has stated that he did not lodge any complaint relating to the incident. According to her the people gathered took advantage of the situation and collected money and Wine bottles. He has stated that he refused to accept money, but did not raise any objection. He has stated that he did not lodge any complaint relating to the incident. He has stated that Sri Manoj Shrutikar came to him and asked about the incident and accordingly he narrated the same to him. He cannot exactly say as to how many people received money from the Respondent He has stated that Shri Manoj Shrutikar enquired about the incident after the election was over. He has stated that the affidavit sworn by him was typed at the residence of the Petitioner. EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENT 64. The Respondent examined herself and her election agent as R.W. 1 and R.W. 2 respectively. R.W. 1, in her statement on affidavit has stated that the allegations made in the election petition as well as the statements of the P.Ws. are absolutely false and without any basis. She has stated that the statements made are tutored one and parrot like. She has stated that as per the Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates, issued by the Election Commission of India and strictly followed during the election, every party or candidate should inform the local police authorities of the venue and time of any proposed meeting well in time so as to enable the police to make necessary arrangement for controlling traffic and maintaining peace and order. Moreover, permission/license has to be obtained from the authorities for the use of loud speakers or any other facilities in connection with any proposed meeting. She has stated about her earlier stint as MLA and Minister as a consequence of which the police gave her extra security cover. She has stated that she did not visit the places as alleged by the election Petitioner and there is no entry to that effect m her election diary. There is also no record of filing any application before the authorities intimating about holding of such meeting. In a nutshell, her stand is that the allegations made in the election petition and in the statements of the witnesses are false, concocted and baseless. 65. In the CE, she has stated that she did not visit Desam Tea Estate on 31.3.2006 at 4 PM. In a nutshell, her stand is that the allegations made in the election petition and in the statements of the witnesses are false, concocted and baseless. 65. In the CE, she has stated that she did not visit Desam Tea Estate on 31.3.2006 at 4 PM. She has also denied that on 1.4.2006, she was personally present at Chakalia Harimandir at about 1.30 PM. She has denied that she offered money to the voters at Lengerijan Tea Estate and also that she offered money to voters in the labour line of Desam Tea Estate on 31.3.2006. She has also denied that any feast was organized on 3.4.2006 and that she was personally present in the said feast and asked the voters to cast their votes in her favour. She has also denied that her election agent offered money to voters on 31.3.2006 and 1.4.2006. In a nutshell, she has totally denied the allegations made by the Petitioner and his witnesses. 66.R.W. 2, is the election agent of the Petitioner. He has generally stated about the stand of the Respondent in his examination in chief on affidavit. He has reiterated the stand of the Respondent in her written statement as well as the statements made in her evidence in affidavit. In CE, he has stated that he is a member of INC since 1985. He is the General Secretary of Jaipur Block Congress. He has stated that he was personally not responsible for furnishing information to police regarding holding of meeting and it was the duty of the Block Congress, which usually used to furnish intimation to the police. He has stated that for use of hand microphone (handset), permission is required to be obtained. He has further stated that in case of any requirement to make use of the loud speaker, permission was obtained from the police station by submitting written application. He has stated that during electioneering extra security was provided to the Respondent. He has denied that he visited Desam Tea Estate on 31.3.2006 at about 4 PM and also Chakalia Harimandir on 1.4.2006 at about 1.30 PM. He has also denied offering of money to the voters. He has further denied visiting Nabajyoti LP School on 1.4.2006 at about 2.30 PM. Thus in a nutshell, it is the total denial on the part of the RW 2 about the allegations made against the Respondent. ARGUMENTS 67. Mr. He has also denied offering of money to the voters. He has further denied visiting Nabajyoti LP School on 1.4.2006 at about 2.30 PM. Thus in a nutshell, it is the total denial on the part of the RW 2 about the allegations made against the Respondent. ARGUMENTS 67. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. S. Dey, leaned counsel representing the Petitioner upon exclusive reference to the aforesaid evidence on record, provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the case laws in his elaborate and pain sticking argument submitted that the allegation of corrupt practice having been established, the election of the Respondent is liable to be set aside. Dealing with the principles relating to burden of proof, shifting of burden, duty of the Respondent in case of shifting of burden, furnishing of explanation relating to points raised, evaluation and analyzing the evidence, Mr. Dutta placed reliance on the following decisions: (1996) 3 SCC 624 : R. Puthunainar Alhithan v. RH. Pandian (1994) 1 SCC 682 : Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E.V. @ Balasaheb Vikhe Patil AIR 1985 SC 24 : Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thaku Muneshwar Nath Singh AIR 1985 SC 236 : S Harcharan Singh v. S Sajjan Singh AIR 1975 SC 667 : Ch. Razik Ram v. Ch. J.S Chouhan AIR 1975 SC 1045 : Pratap Singh v. Rajinder Singh (1990) 3 SCC 190 : Vijaee Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1971 SC 1295 : Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla (1995) 5 SCC 347 : Gajanan Krishnajit Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe AIR 1986 Gau 01: Rainbow Ezung v. Mhao Lotha (2001) 6 SCC 145 : Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersingh (2004) 11 SCC 253 : Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1445 : Rajendra Prasad Jain v. Sheel Bhadra Yajee 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 170 : C. Narayanaswamy v. C.K. Jqffer Sharief AIR 1961 Cal 359 : A.E.G Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian AIR 1983 Cal 337 : Traders Syndicate v. Union of India 68. On the other hand Mr. A. M. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned counsel for the Respondent in his usual persuasive pursuits argued that the oral evidence adduced by the Petitioner without any documentary evidence is worthy of no credence. On the other hand Mr. A. M. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned counsel for the Respondent in his usual persuasive pursuits argued that the oral evidence adduced by the Petitioner without any documentary evidence is worthy of no credence. He in his argument questioned as to why there is not even a scrap of paper relating to the alleged malpractices, more particularly, when it is the case of the Petitioner that relating to such malpractices he had lodged complaints with various authorities. He submitted that the malpractices attributed to the Respondent are unbelievable, more particularly having regard to the antecedents of the Respondent, who on earlier two occasions successfully contested the election. Exclusively referring to the oral evidence on record, Mr. Majumdar submitted that the facts alleged having not been proved, the initial burden, which is heavy on the Petitioner has not been discharged. According to him, the case made out by the Petitioner is not believable and the witnesses examined by him are not trustworthy on the face of it inasmuch as none of them reported the alleged incidents to any one else except the Petitioner and his election agent. According to him, non-examination of the documents about which the Petitioner has made a mention in the election petition as well as in his deposition is fatal to his case. 69. Mr. Majumdar, referring to the oral testimony of the R.W. 1 and R.W. 2, submitted that in the CE nothing could be brought out establishing the case of the Petitioner. As regards the submission of Mr. Dutta, leaned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent having failed to examine her other witnesses, for which she sought permission of the Court vide Misc. Case No. 3820/2006 is fatal to the case of the Respondent, Mr. Majumdar, learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent did not feel it necessary to examine the other witnesses as the Petitioner measurably failed to establish his case. According to him, it being a case of statement against statement, the election petition is liable to be dismissed in absence of any clinching evidence in favour of the Petitioner. Majumdar, learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent did not feel it necessary to examine the other witnesses as the Petitioner measurably failed to establish his case. According to him, it being a case of statement against statement, the election petition is liable to be dismissed in absence of any clinching evidence in favour of the Petitioner. He has also placed reliance on the following decisions: AIR 1977 SC 208 : M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy (1974) 2 SCC 660 : Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed 1985 (Supp) SCC 611: Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh (1999) 8 SCC 198 : Narender Singh v. Mala Ram and Anr (1993) Supp (3) SCC 645: Thakur Sen Negi v. Dev Reg Negi (2006) 1 SCC 212 : Satrucharia Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju (1999) 9 SCC 386 : Jeet Mahinder Singh v. Dharminder Singh Jassi (1995) 5 SCC 347 : Gajanan Krishnajit Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe (1996) 3 SCC 624 : R. Puthunainar Alhithan v. P.H. Pandian (2001) 10 SCC 685 : Nand Singh v. Ajit Inder Singh AIR 1975 SC 667 : Ch. Razik Ram v. Ch. J.S. Chouhan (2000) 1 SCC 481 : R.P Moidutti Vs. P.T. Kunju Mohammad (2004) 2 SCC 227 : Borgaram Deuri v. Premodhar Bora AIR 1981 SC 373 : Juwarsingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1959 Cal 213 : Binapani Roja v. Rabindranath Sarkar AIR 1970 Cal 38 : Sachidananda Chatterjee v. Smt. Bilima Chatterjee AIR 1982 Bom 498 : P v. P AIR 1961 Cal 359 : AEG Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian AIR 1969 Guj 69 : Koli Trikam Jivraj v. State of Gujarat AIR 1986 Gau 01 : Rainbow Ezung v. Mhao Lotha PROVISIONS RELATING TO CORRUPT PRACTICE 70. Before scrutinizing the evidence on record on the basis of the issues framed and appreciating the arguments advanced by the leaned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to deal with the provisions relating to corrupt practice as finds mention in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and so also the principles underlying the required standard of proof emphasizing on which the learned Counsel for the parties have extensively argued upon reference to the aforesaid case laws. 71. Section 8A of the Act speaks of disqualification on ground of corrupt practices which finds mention in Section 2(c) of the Act. 71. Section 8A of the Act speaks of disqualification on ground of corrupt practices which finds mention in Section 2(c) of the Act. Corrupt practice means any of the practices specified in Section123. Section 100 specifies the grounds for declaring an election to be void. One of the grounds is commission of corrupt practice by the returned candidate or his election agent or any other person with the consent of the retuned candidate or his election agent. Section 123 deals with corrupt practices. Section 123(1) reads as follows: 123. Corrupt practices.- The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purpose of this Act. (1) "Bribery", that is to say- (A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly, or inducing- (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election; or (b) and elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to - (i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for (having withdrawn or not having withdrawn) his candidature; or (ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting; (B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive of a reward- (a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being, a candidature; or (b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature. GENERAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO CORRUPT PRACTICE 72. The principles relating to proof of corrupt practice which have generally emerged on a reading of the judgments referred to by the leaned counsel for the parties and relevant are as follows: (I) The trial of an election petition is like a trial in the criminal case and the burden to proof of corrupt practice is on the election Petitioner. The doctrine of preponderance of probabilities in a civil action is not extended for proof of corrupt practice. The doctrine of preponderance of probabilities in a civil action is not extended for proof of corrupt practice. (II) In an election petition, when the election Petitioner has adduced evidence to prove that the returned candidate had committed corrupt practice, the burden shifts on the returned candidate to rebut the evidence. The onus lies heavily on the election Petitioner to establish the charge of corrupt practice and in case of doubt the benefit goes to the returned candidate. (III) In the case of an election petition, based on allegation of commission of corrupt practice, the standard of proof is generally speaking that of criminal trial, which requires strict proof of the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof is on the Petitioner and that burden does not shift. (IV) While insisting on standard of strict proof, the Court should not extend or stretch this doctrine to such an extreme extent as to make it well-nigh impossible to prove an allegation of corrupt practice. By and large, the Court in such cases while appreciating or analyzing the evidence must be guided by the following considerations. (a) The nature, character, (b) The surrounding circumstances and the improbability appearing m the case. (c) The totality of the effect of the entire evidence, which leaves a lasting impression regarding the corrupt practices alleged. (V) In a matter of this nature, the evidence is mostly oral. Therefore, specially where the charge is a grave one; namely corrupt practice, which if proof would disentitled the candidate to contest the election for sometime to come, the Courts must proceed with caution. An election once held ought not to be treated in a light-hearted manner and defeated candidate should not get away with it by filing election petition. (VI) A grave and heavy onus rests on the election Petitioner to establish corrupt practice by clear, cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be established by a mere balance of probabilities. (VII) The doubt which the law contemplates is certainly not that of a weak or unduly vacillating, capricious, indolence, drowsy or confused mind. It must be doubt of the prudent man, who is assumed to be possessed the capacity of "separate the chaff from the grain". It cannot be established by a mere balance of probabilities. (VII) The doubt which the law contemplates is certainly not that of a weak or unduly vacillating, capricious, indolence, drowsy or confused mind. It must be doubt of the prudent man, who is assumed to be possessed the capacity of "separate the chaff from the grain". It is the doubt of a reasonable, restitute and alert mind arrived at after due application of mind to every relevant circumstance of the case appearing from the evidence. It is not a doubt, which occurs to a wavering mind. (VIII) A charge of corrupt practice cannot be equated to a criminal charge in all respect. While the accused in a criminal case can refuse to plead and decline to adduce evidence on his behalf and yet ask the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, such is not the position in an election petition. Though, the nature of allegations in cases alleging corrupt practices are quashi criminal and the burden is heavy on him, who assails an election but unlike in a criminal trial, where an accused has liberty to keep silent, during the trial of an election petition the returned candidate has to place before the Court his version and to satisfy the Court that he had not committed the corrupt practice as alleged in the petition and wherever necessary by adducing evidence besides giving his sworn testimony denying the allegations. However, the stage reaches if and when the election Petitioner leads cogent and reliable evidence to prove the charges leveled against retuned candidate and then can it be said that the former had discharged the burden. (IX) The aforesaid principle necessarily means that if the election Petitioner fails to adduce such evidence, which may persuade the Court to draw a presumption in his favour, the retuned candidate will not be required to discharge his burden by adducing evidence in rebuttal. (X) Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, whether the allegations are sought to be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. (XI) A charge of corrupt practice is easy to level but difficult to prove. If it is sought to be proved only or mainly by oral evidence without there being contemporaneous documents to support it. (X) Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, whether the allegations are sought to be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. (XI) A charge of corrupt practice is easy to level but difficult to prove. If it is sought to be proved only or mainly by oral evidence without there being contemporaneous documents to support it. Court should be very careful in scrutinizing the oral evidence and should not lightly accept it unless, the evidence is credible, trustworthy, natural and showing beyond doubt the commission of corrupt practice as alleged. (XII) Oral evidence has to be judged with greatest care as very often the evidence is of partition witnesses like workers, agents, supporters and friends, who have to be regarded as highly interested. So corroboration from independent source, unlying circumstances or contemporaneous and unimpeachable documents is sought for as a matter of prudence to lend assurance to the verbal testimony. (XIII) Mere consistency in the evidence may not weigh, as tutored witnesses are capable of being consistent. So, if the evidence is fraught with inherent improbabilities and replete with unnatural tendency. Court may reject the same. (XIV) If two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him - Courts should not interfere with the expensive electoral process and instead of setting at naught the election of the winning candidate should uphold his election giving him the benefit of doubt. This is more so where allegations of fraud or undue influence are made. SCRUTINY OF EVIDENCE AND ANSWER TO THE ISSUES 73. Keeping in mind the above principles and taking into account the issues involved, I now proceed to undertake the task of scrutinizing the evidence on record. The case of the Petitioner is based solely on oral evidence and there is no documentary evidence. It is in this context, the emphasis put by the learned Counsel for the parties 74. The matter will also have to be considered in the touchstone of the fact that the Petitioner and his election agent were in the Congress party and they resigned from the party, when the party did not nominate him as its candidate from the Constituency. It will also have to be considered keeping in mind that the allegation of corrupt practice is not a general one throughout the entire constituency, but confined to only few spots. ISSUE Nos. It will also have to be considered keeping in mind that the allegation of corrupt practice is not a general one throughout the entire constituency, but confined to only few spots. ISSUE Nos. 1 to 6 75. No objection as such has been raised on behalf of the Respondent in respect of issue Nos. 1 to 6, which pertain to maintainability of the election petition, cause of action, whether the election petition has been presented as per the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, whether proper security deposit has been made, whether there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 81, 82 and 83 of the Act and as to whether the election petition has been presented disclosing the ingredients of Section 100 and 123 of the Act. 76. The election petition has been filed alleging corrupt practices on the part of the Respondent disclosing certain facts. The election petition has also been filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In such a situation, there is no escape from answering the issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative. Likewise, the Petitioner having complied with the requirements of Section 117 as well as Section 81, 82 and 83 of the Act, the issues relating to the same i.e. issue Nos. 4 and 5 are also answered in the affirmative. Further, since the whole basis of the claim of the Petitioner is based on the alleged corrupt practices on the part of the Respondent, disclosing the ingredients of Section100 read with Section 123 of the Act, the issue No. 6 is also answered in the affirmative. ISSUE Nos. 7 TO 13 77. While the issue Nos. 7 to 10 pertain to the alleged corrupt practices indulged in by the Respondent herself, issue Nos. 11 to 13 pertain to her election agent. 78. The allegations made is that on 29.3.2006, the Respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by distributing money to the voters at the market area of the Langherjan Tea Estate and at line No. 9, Baghmara Village as stated in paragraph 11 and 12 of the election petition. 11 to 13 pertain to her election agent. 78. The allegations made is that on 29.3.2006, the Respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by distributing money to the voters at the market area of the Langherjan Tea Estate and at line No. 9, Baghmara Village as stated in paragraph 11 and 12 of the election petition. Further allegation is that the Respondent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by way of distributing money to the voters on 31.3.2006 at the labour line of Desam Tea Estate and so also by organizing feast at Nammp Tea Estate on 3.4.2006 as stated in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the election petition. 79. The incidents relating to issue Nos. 11, 12 and 13 pertain to the election agent of the Petitioner, who allegedly indulged himself in corrupt practice of bribery by offering money to the voters on 31.3.2006 and 1.4.2006 at the labour line of Desam Tea Estate and at Chakalia Harimandir of Parubura village respectively as stated in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the election petition. It is further alleged that the said election agent committed the corrupt practice of bribery by offering money to the voters on 1.4.2006 at Nabajyoti L.P School premises of Panibura Pathar village as stated in paragraph 17 of the election petition. 80. All the aforesaid incidents find mention in the aforesaid issues are sought to be established by the oral testimony of the P.Ws. The oral testimony of the witnesses has been discussed above. In the election petition, the Petitioner has generally stated about the corrupt practices purportedly adopted by the Respondent. In his evidence, he has stated that the incident of 29.3.2006, 31.3.2006 and 1.4.2006 were reported to him by his election agent Sri Manoj Kumar Shmtikar (P.W. 30) as well as P.W. Nos. 25, 28, 12, 17 and 15. However, he has not stated as to on which date he was so informed. As regards the hosting of feast on the date of the election i.e. 3.4.2006, his statement is that the incident was reported to him by P.W. 6 and 7, out of which, P.W. 7 was his worker. According to the Petitioner, his election agent on 7.4.2006 lodged complaint with the Circle Officer and constituency Magistrate. The Petitioner has not chosen to produce the copies of the said complaints, which were very material to establish the link with his statement. 81. According to the Petitioner, his election agent on 7.4.2006 lodged complaint with the Circle Officer and constituency Magistrate. The Petitioner has not chosen to produce the copies of the said complaints, which were very material to establish the link with his statement. 81. In the CE, he has admitted the fact of having resigned from the Congress and contested the election on public demand. He has also admitted that his election agent attended the constituency meetings and the meeting of election observer once. He has further stated that his election agent had submitted daily report regarding expenses and all other incidental matters relating to holding of office, electioneering etc. to the Returning Officer. His categorical statement is that whenever his election agent went to Dibmgarh, met the observer. In the CE he has also stated that he made several complaints before the observer and the Returning Officer, regarding the malpractices of the Respondent. her agent and the workers. In CE he has stated about distribution of blankets by the Respondent to the voters, which does not find mention either in the election petition or in his evidence in affidavit. 82. In CE, he has further stated that he lodged written complaints before the Chief Election Commissioner also in addition to the complaints lodged with the Returning Officer. He has stated that the Returning Officer acknowledged receipt of the written complaints by giving endorsement as the Circle Officer. Contrary to the statement made in evidence in affidavit that he came to know about the incidents relating to corrupt practices from his election agent and other P.Ws. in the CE, he has stated that during electioneering he received certain complaints regarding malpractices by the Respondent and he furnished the information to his election agent. He has stated that he had not seen the illegalities committed by the Respondent personally, but received the information from Ors. . Deviating from his earlier stand in the CE, that he lodged written complaints with the Returning Officer, he has stated that he did not lodge any complaint with the Returning Officer personally. He has stated about the particular complaint dated 7.4.2006 addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner alongwith the relevant documents, copy of which was also furnished to the Returning Officer. He has also stated about time-to-time intimation sent to all the authorities. 83. He has stated about the particular complaint dated 7.4.2006 addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner alongwith the relevant documents, copy of which was also furnished to the Returning Officer. He has also stated about time-to-time intimation sent to all the authorities. 83. All the aforesaid statements made by the Petitioner in his CE are to be viewed from two angles. Firstly, the aforesaid statements relating to lodging of complaints are not there in the election petition in such detail. Secondly, although the Petitioner has stated about so many complaints including the acknowledgement by giving endorsement, but not a single copy of the same has been produced to lend support to the oral testimony. There is also variation in his statement regarding personal complaint lodged and the complaint lodged by his election agent. 84. The election agent of the Petitioner i.e. P.W. 30 in his evidence in affidavit has stated about his personal supervision of the election campaign of the Petitioner. His statement is that he was personally working at the grass root level, monitoring and leading the campaign for the Petitioner. However, he personally did not notice any malpractice on the part of the Respondent, but the workers and members of the public including the voters reported the same to him. In his statement in affidavit, he has not stated anything about lodging of complaints with the authorities as has been stated by the Petitioner. 85. In the CE, he has admitted that he resigned from the Congress on 17th March, 2006, on which date the Petitioner also resigned. He has stated that he had attended the meetings relating to code of conduct etc. organized by the Election Commission and that in such meetings difficulties being faced by the candidates and irregularities being committed were discussed. He has stated that the illegalities committed by the Respondent were reported to Sri Dhrubajyoti Bora, the Constituency Magistrate. He has also stated that the matter was brought to the notice of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief Election Officer of the State as well as the District Returning Officer and Constituency Magistrate. Such reporting was in writing. He has also admitted that the written complaints were accepted with due acknowledgement. His further statement is that the complaints find mention in the Complaint Register maintained in the of office of the Petitioner during electioneering. Such reporting was in writing. He has also admitted that the written complaints were accepted with due acknowledgement. His further statement is that the complaints find mention in the Complaint Register maintained in the of office of the Petitioner during electioneering. He has stated that although, he is in possession of the copies of the written complaints with the endorsement of acknowledgement, but the same could not be annexed and/or produced as the election petition was filed hurriedly. 86. Thus, the P.W. 30 has also failed to establish any link between the oral testimony of the P.Ws. and the written complaints, which allegedly find mention about the incidents of corrupt practices testifies by the P.Ws. The explanation furnished that the copies of the complaints with due endorsement of acknowledgement could not be produced as the election petition was filed hurriedly is totally unacceptable. Even if, such a contention is accepted, nothing prevented the Petitioner or his election agent to produce the same alongwith the evidence in affidavit This missing link makes the case of the Petitioner highly improbable. 87. The evidence of the other P.Ws. has been discussed above. One common feature of all the P.Ws. is that although they allegedly witnessed the alleged corrupt practices on the part of the Respondent, even to the extent of arranging a feast on the day of election and hosting the same in a quarter just adjacent to the polling station, none of the witnesses lodged any complaint with any election authorities nor the authorities of the administration. The P.Ws. who had allegedly witnessed the incident could have atleast informed the election officers present inside the polling station. The matter will also have to be considered in the back ground of the fact that the Respondent being the third timer in the election fray from the same constituency and being the winner on the earlier two occasions, whether would have taken recourse to such acts even to the extent of arranging feast on the election day just adjacent to the polling station. ISSUE No. 10 88. This issue pertains to organizing feast by the Respondent at Namrup Tea Estate on the date of the election i.e. 3.4.2006. 89. P.W. 2 is an active Congress worker for the last about 30 years. According to him, he reported the incident to P.W. 7, who incidentally worked for the Petitioner in the election. ISSUE No. 10 88. This issue pertains to organizing feast by the Respondent at Namrup Tea Estate on the date of the election i.e. 3.4.2006. 89. P.W. 2 is an active Congress worker for the last about 30 years. According to him, he reported the incident to P.W. 7, who incidentally worked for the Petitioner in the election. In the normal circumstances, a Congress worker of 30 years standing and opposed to such corrupt practice, would have reported the incident immediately to the party higher ups, but he did nothing of the sort and instead allegedly reported the incident to P.W. 7 and P.W. 6. He also did not lodge any complaint with the election officials present in the polling station nor anyone of the administration. His reporting of the incident only to P.W. 7, an active worker of the Petitioner is unusual. 90. P.W. 3 stated to be an independent witness unconnected with any political party, who allegedly witnessed the feast, also did not lodge any complaint with any officials, but only discussed the matter with P.W. 6 and 7. He had allegedly informed Sri Dhiraj Majhi about the incident. No other P.Ws. said so. The veracity of such a statement could have been ascertained had Dhiraj Majhi being a witness. 91. Another witness relating to the incident is P.W. 4, who does not know what is meant by "candidate" and "party". She also does not know how many candidates contested the election and as to how many parties were involved. She is the wife of P.W. 3. Her evidence is also not clinching. Another witness to the incident is P.W. 5, who is projected as an independent witness. However, he informed the incident only to P.W. 7, an active worker of the Petitioner and none else. He does not know which candidates belonged to which party. 92. P.W. 6 is the purported Freelance Journalist, who purportedly took photographs and also did videography of the entire incident Being a journalist, it was only natural for him to intimate the incident atleast to the election officials present, but he did not. He could only see P.W. 7, the known worker of the Petitioner and P.W. 2. It was only after the election, he narrated the incident only to the Petitioner and none else. He could only see P.W. 7, the known worker of the Petitioner and P.W. 2. It was only after the election, he narrated the incident only to the Petitioner and none else. Although, the Mini DV Cassette purportedly containing the incident, has been produced, but there is no insistence on the part of the Petitioner for exhibition of the same so as to prove the veracity of his statement. In CE, he has stated that on that day he met three candidates, namely, the Petitioner, Sri Dibya Konwar and Smt. Pranati Phukan i.e. the Respondent. Although, he put questions to Dibya Konwar, but he did neither to the Respondent nor Smt. Runu Arandhara, who allegedly accompanied her. He enquired about the incident only from P.W. 2 and 7 and none else. The Petitioner could have easily exhibited the report of the incident allegedly published in the newspaper called "Dainik Batori". There is also no statement that the photographs were published in the said newspaper. He allegedly discussed the incident in the press club, but the members did not ask him to lodge any complaint, which is highly improbable. He allegedly handed over the photographs to the Petitioner, but the said photographs are not to be seen in this proceeding. 93. P.W. 7 is the active worker of the Petitioner, who also allegedly witnessed the feast. Although, he claims to have reported the incident to one Sri S. Natii, DSP, but to testify the same, said Nath is not the witness of the Petitioner. In his CE, he has stated that on the particular day i.e. the date of polling, when the incident took place, the Petitioner also visited the polling station. If that be so, the Petitioner would have noticed the feast for himself and there was no necessity to report the same to him by Ors. . Even otherwise also the Petitioner would have come to know about the incident on that day itself instead of coming to know about the same only after the election. Like that of Ors. , this witness also reported the incident only to the Petitioner and his election agent and none else. 94. Above being the position, it cannot be said to be a case of convincing evidence so as to return the finding of corrupt practice on the part of the Respondent. Mere doubt even if any, will not be enough. , this witness also reported the incident only to the Petitioner and his election agent and none else. 94. Above being the position, it cannot be said to be a case of convincing evidence so as to return the finding of corrupt practice on the part of the Respondent. Mere doubt even if any, will not be enough. Consequently, the issue No. 10 is answered in the negative against the Petitioner. ISSUE N0. 9 AND 11 95. Both the issues relate to the corrupt practice of bribery by way of distributing money to the voters on 31.3.2006 by the Respondent and her election agent at the labour line of Desam Tea Estate. The concerned witnesses are P.W. 8 to 12 and 21. P.W. 8 and 9 are father and daughter. They allegedly witnessed distribution of money by the election agent of the Respondent. Like that of the other witnesses, they also reported the incident only to the Petitioner and his election agent, although, they are projected as independent witnesses. It will have to be born in mind that the P.W. 9 is associated with sports and she represented the Naharkatia Sports Association in football and hockey meets. The Petitioner is the President of the said Sports Association and his election agent Sri Manoj Shrutikar renders counselling to the players. Neitiier the P.W. 8 nor P.W. 9 reported the alleged incident to anyone and even to the Garden Manager. They have specifically stated that they did not report the incident to any election officials. 96. P.W. 10, 11 and 12 are the other witnesses relating to the incident. There is no explanation as to why they reported the incident only to the Petitioner and his election agent. P.W. 11 and 12 have stated to have witnessed the incident of distribution of money by the Respondent, but the fact that they reported the alleged incident only to the Petitioner and his election agent, makes then-story highly improbable. A conscious voter as they claimed to be, would have widely reported the incident by bringing the same to the notice of the responsible persons including the election officials, instead of keeping mum till after the election when they allegedly reported the incident to the Petitioner and his agent. 97. The evidence of P.W. 21 is also not trustworthy. She narrated the alleged incident only to the Petitioner and his election agent. 97. The evidence of P.W. 21 is also not trustworthy. She narrated the alleged incident only to the Petitioner and his election agent. She is also a sports person and plays football and associated with Naharkatia Sports Association of which the Petitioner is the President. Thus, it cannot be said that she is a disinterested witness. Although, in her CE, she has stated that she does not know Manoj Shrutikar, the election agent of the Petitioner, but ironically she narrated the incident to him and there is no explanation as to what made her to meet him only and none else. 98. Above being the position, the issue Nos. 9 and 11 are also answered in the negative against the Petitioner. ISSUE No. 13 99. Issue No. 13 pertains to commission of corrupt practice of bribery by Sri Hiranya Montri, the election agent of the Respondent to the voters on 1.4.2006 at Nabajyoti L.P. School premises. Witnesses to this alleged incident are P.W. 13 to 17. As in the case of all other witnesses, these witnesses also allegedly reported the incident to Petitioner and his election agent only and none else. In CE, the P.W. 13, as against the statement in affidavit that the amount distributed was Rs. 500/- has stated that the amount distributed was Rs. 200/-, 500/- etc. He has specifically stated that he did not report the incident even to Sri Dibya Konwar, the CPM candidate known to him and who organized a meeting in the place. His specific statement is that except the Petitioner and his election agent, he did not report the incident to anyone else. 100. P.W. 14 in his CE, has stated that he did not attend any meeting and as to whether any political party and/or candidate organized any meeting, he does not know. He has specifically stated that he does not know whether the Respondent had come for electioneering and so also as to whether any Congress worker had come for meeting. P.W. 15 is an active Congress worker and he allegedly worked for the Respondent. He allegedly witnessed distribution of money but did not lodge any complaint with any Congress higher ups, which in the normal circumstances would have been the immediate fall out. He allegedly reported the incident on the next day to the Naharkatia Block Congress Committee and so also to the election agent of the Petitioner. He allegedly witnessed distribution of money but did not lodge any complaint with any Congress higher ups, which in the normal circumstances would have been the immediate fall out. He allegedly reported the incident on the next day to the Naharkatia Block Congress Committee and so also to the election agent of the Petitioner. None has been examined from the Block Congress Committee to establish the veracity of the statement. He has named one Dr. Jayanta Gogoi as the District Congress President with whom he allegedly lodged the complaint only on 11.5.2006 i.e. the date of counting of votes. There is no explanation about the delay. Further, said Dr. Jayanta Gogoi is also not a witness to testify the stand of the Petitioner. 101. P.W. 16 is the daughter of P.W. 15. hi her CE, she has categorically stated that she did not lodge any complaint with any authority nor any Congress office bearers of the locality, but narrated the incident only to the election agent of the Petitioner. 102. On the basis of such evidence, it cannot be held that the Respondent or her election agent took recourse to bribery by offering money on 1.4.2006 at the particular school premises. The evidence led by the Petitioner is deficient and not conclusive so as to return the finding of corrupt practice against the Respondent. Accordingly, the issue No. 13 is answered in the negative against the Petitioner. ISSUE No. 12 103. Issue No. 12 pertains to commission of corrupt practice of bribery by the election agent of the Respondent on 1,4.2006 at Chakalia Harimandir and the witnesses are P.W. 17 to 20. They have allegedly witnessed the incident of 1.4.2006. None of the witnesses reported the incident to anyone else but only to the Petitioner and his election agent P.W. 17 also states that he had reported the incident to P.W. 19, who allegedly raised objection to distribution of money. However, P.W. 19, who allegedly raised objection on the spot, later on reported the incident even to the election agent of the Petitioner. Although, he is a CPM worker, but he did not report the incident even to the CPM candidate. Same is the case with the P.W. No. 20, who in his CE has stated that he was not told about the purpose of distribution of money. 104. Although, he is a CPM worker, but he did not report the incident even to the CPM candidate. Same is the case with the P.W. No. 20, who in his CE has stated that he was not told about the purpose of distribution of money. 104. With the above nature of evidence, it is difficult to return the finding in favour of the Petitioner relating to the issue. Even strong suspicion is not sufficient. Situated thus, the answer to the issue No. 12 is bound to be in the negative and it is answered accordingly. ISSUE No. 7 105. This issue pertains to commission of corrupt practice of bribery by distributing money to the voters on 29.3.2006 by the Respondent and the witnesses are P.W. 22 to 25. All the witnesses, although, allegedly witnessed the incident, but surprisingly did not lodge any complaint with any authority, but reported the incident only to the petitions and his election agent. Such reporting was also only after the election. P.W. 23 in his CE has stated that she plays football for Naharkatia Sports Association of which the Petitioner is the President Thus, she cannot be said to be a disinterested witness. As against the claim of other witness that objections were raised to the distribution of money, she in her CE has stated that she does not know, if anybody raised any objection. She has stated that she did not lodge any complaint with any authority aid did not intimate any other candidate. P.W. 24 m his CE has stated that although he had attended the meeting he himself did not see offering of money. P.W.22 and P.W.23, who in their deposition have stated about offering of money to them. According to than, nobody raised any objection regarding offering of money. They also apart from reporting the incident to the election agent of the Petitioner, did not report it to any one else including the election officials. 106. P.W. 25 in his CE has state that the Petitioner had come to the place at about 5.30 PM and there were about 40/50 people. If that be so, the Petitioner would have had the first hand information on the date of the incident itself and not the reported information and that too only after the election. This P.W. also reported the incident to the election agent only on 3.4.2006. 107. If that be so, the Petitioner would have had the first hand information on the date of the incident itself and not the reported information and that too only after the election. This P.W. also reported the incident to the election agent only on 3.4.2006. 107. The aforesaid evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner is not strong and cogent enough to hold that the incident relating to issue No. 7 did take place. Consequently, this issue is also answered in negative against the Petitioner. ISSUE No. 8 108. This pertains to distribution of money by the Respondent on 29.3.2006 and line No. 9, Baghmara Village and the witnesses are P.W. 26 to 29. As usual, the incident was reported only to Petitioner and his election agent and none else. P.W. 26 speaks of offering of wine bottle to him by the Respondent, which is not to be found in his examination m chief Thus, this witness has tried to develop the incident. P.W. 27, in her CE has stated that she does not remember the date of the meeting. She did not report the incident to anyone else except the Petitioner and his election agent. P.W. 28 has also stated the same thing. In her CE, she has admitted having worked for congress, but according to her she stopped working for the party seeing the corrupt practice. However, such a politically alive person could report the incident only to the election agent of the Petitioner and none else and that too only on the date of the election. She admits that she did not report the incident to anyone else. 109. P.W. 29, Anr. witness has also stated the same thing. However, he has developed the incident by stating that the people gathered took advantage of the situation and collected money and wine bottles and not the single wine bottle on which the other witnesses have emphasized. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that apart from money, wine bottles were also distributed. This witness did not lodge any complaint. It was the election agent who had come to him and asked for narration of the incident and he came only after the election. 110. It is on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the incident involved in issue No. 8 is sought to be established. This witness did not lodge any complaint. It was the election agent who had come to him and asked for narration of the incident and he came only after the election. 110. It is on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the incident involved in issue No. 8 is sought to be established. The degree of proof, which is required in the matter of corrupt practice cannot be said to have been achieved by the Petitioner. Situated thus, I have no hesitation to answer the issue in the negative against the Petitioner. SUMMARISATION 111. Although, Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, upon a reference to the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in A.E.G. Carapiet and Traders Syndicate (supra) submitted that the Respondent having failed to put her case in CE of P.Ws, the testimony given is not disrupted at all, but the same will have to be tested in the touchstone of acceptability of the testimony of the witnesses. Cross examination is not the only method of discrediting a witness. If the oral testimony of witnesses is on the face of it unacceptable. Courts are not bound to accept their testimony, because there was no cross examination. Further, it is not a case of not cross examining the witnesses. Apart from the fact that the P.Ws. have not inspired the confidence of this Court so as to return the finding of corrupt practice on the part of the Respondent on the basis of the underlying principles towards establishing the same, the Petitioner has also not produced any documentary evidence so essential to establish this nature of charge, more so, when the Petitioner himself has stated about existence of such numerous document, about which discussions have been made above. 112. Apart from the fact that some of the P.Ws. are partisan, the testimony of other P.Ws. will also have to be considered in the touchstone of the fact that all of them are equivocal, so far reporting of the incidents are concerned, that they did not report the same to any one except the Petitioner and the election agent. Their evidence, thus, will have to be viewed with circumspection. It cannot be said to be inconceivable that the P.Ws. collaborated with the Petitioner in the malpractices alleged. It cannot be said to be a case of intrinsically sound evidence about which discussions have been made above. Their evidence, thus, will have to be viewed with circumspection. It cannot be said to be inconceivable that the P.Ws. collaborated with the Petitioner in the malpractices alleged. It cannot be said to be a case of intrinsically sound evidence about which discussions have been made above. In this connection, the observation of the Apex Court in paragraph 21 of Rahim Khan (supra) is worth referring: We must emphasize the danger of believing at its face value oral evidence in an election case without the backing of sure circumstances or indubitable documents. It must be remembered that corrupt practices may perhaps be proved by hiring half-a-dozen witnesses apparently respectable and disinterested, to speak to short and simple episode such as that a small village meeting took place where the candidate accused his rival or personal vices. There is no x-ray whereby the dishonesty of the story can be established and, if the Court were gullible enough to gulp such oral versions and invalidate elections, a new menace to our electoral system would have been invented through the judicial apparatus. We regard it as extremely unsafe, in the present climate of kilkenny-cat election competitions and partisan witnesses wearing robes of veracity, to upturn a hard won electoral victory merely because lip of service to a corrupt practice has been rendered by some sanctimonious witnesses. The Court must look for serious assurance, unlying circumstances or unimpeachable documents to uphold grave charges of corrupt practices which might not merely cancel the election result, but extinguish many a man's public life. 113. Since the allegation of corrupt practice on the part of the Respondent will have to be viewed with the stand point that the same is criminal in nature an entail the penalty of disqualification, it will be appropriate to seek strong and dependable evidence. Refusal to best the decision on oral evidence alone cannot be said to be unjustified, since the evidence as discussed above is not supported by strong, reliable and trustworthy corroboration. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh reported in SC/0176/1985 : 1985 (Supp) SCC 611, discussing about the principles relating to appreciation of evidence in election disputes observed thus: In borderline cases the Courts have to undertake the onerous task of, 'disengaging the truth from falsehood, to separate the chaff from the grain'. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh reported in SC/0176/1985 : 1985 (Supp) SCC 611, discussing about the principles relating to appreciation of evidence in election disputes observed thus: In borderline cases the Courts have to undertake the onerous task of, 'disengaging the truth from falsehood, to separate the chaff from the grain'. In our opinion, all said and done, if two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him-Courts should not interfere with the expensive electoral process and instead of setting at naught the election of the wining candidate should uphold his election giving him the benefit of doubt. Thus us more so where allegations of fraud or undue influence are made. 114. Further Thakur Sen Negi (supra), the Apex Court observed thus: It must be remembered that in an election dispute the evidence is ordinarily of partisan witnesses and rarely of independent witnesses and, therefore, the Court must be slow in accepting oral evidence unless it is corroborated by reliable and dependable material. It must be remembered that the decision of the ballot must not be lightly interfered with at the behest of a defeated candidate unless the challenge is on substantial grounds supported by responsible and dependable evidence. 115. In the instant case, charge of corrupt practice is sought to be established only by oral evidence without being supported by any contemporaneous document existence of which the Petitioner himself has mentioned. However, he has chosen not to produce the same and/or to call for the same detailing the particulars. I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence. Upon such scrutiny, what is found has been discussed above. The evidence led by the Petitioner cannot be said to be credible, trustworthy, natural and showing beyond doubt the commission of corrupt practice by the Respondent, as alleged. The principles underlying and essential to establish the charge of corrupt practice detailed above are missing in the instant case. 116. In view of the above, the issue Nos. 14 and 15 are bound to fail and they are answered accordingly. All the issues having been answered in the negative against the Petitioner, and there being failure on the part of the Petitioner to establish the case of corrupt practice against the Respondent, the election petition fails and accordingly same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.