ORDER I.S. Shrivastava, J. 1. This order is for the mode of evidence and examination of the witnesses in this Election Petition. It has been argued on behalf of the Respondent that since the charges against the respondents are of corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act (for short the Act) hence they have to be proved like criminal charges, therefore, the trial of this petition should be like a criminal case and charges should be actually proved and should not be based on preponderance and probabilities as in civil cases. The evidence should not be recorded through affidavits. 2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that according to Section 87 of the Act, election petition has to be tried in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of the suits. Hence evidence may be recorded by affidavits. The charges of corrupt practices has to be proved by the petitioner but the respondent is not going to be punished under the criminal law; hence no question arises that this petition should be decided in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. Only charges of corrupt practices has to be proved with the other grounds on the basis of evidence and not to be decided on preponderance and probabilities. 3. Considered arguments. 4. According to Section 87(1) of the Act, the election petition has to be tried as may be in accordance with procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to the trial of suits. Hence for the trial of the election petition, Criminal Procedure Code 1973 does not apply. There may be charges of corrupt practice on the basis of which election of respondent may be challenged. By the evidence the charges have to be proved like a criminal charge not based on preponderance and probabilities. 5. In the cases of N.C. Zeliang v. Aju Newmai and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 8 , Manmohan Kalia v. Shri Yash and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1161 , Surindar Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 89 , Kailash v. Nanku and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2441 and Baldev Singh Mann v. Surjit Singh Dhiman (2009) 1 SCC 633 , the nature of proof for the charges of corrupt practice has been discussed. AIR 1984 SC 1161 , Surindar Singh v. Hardial Singh and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 89 , Kailash v. Nanku and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2441 and Baldev Singh Mann v. Surjit Singh Dhiman (2009) 1 SCC 633 , the nature of proof for the charges of corrupt practice has been discussed. In the case of Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi (1999) 9 SCC 386 it has been held that "the charges of corrupt practices are quasi criminal in nature. If substantiated it leads not only to the setting aside of the election of such candidate but also on his being disqualified to contest an election for certain period. It may entail extinction of a person's public life and political career. Trial of election petition though within the realm of civil law is akin to trial of a criminal charge. Two consequences follow: firstly the allegation relating to a commission of corrupt practice should be sufficiently clear and stated precisely so as to afford the person charged a full opportunity of meeting the same. Secondly the charge when put to issue, should be proved by the clear, cogent and credible evidence. To prove charges of corrupt practice a mere preponderance and probabilities would not be enough. There would be a presumption of innocence available to the person charged. The charge shall have to be proved to the hilt, the standard of proof being same as in criminal trial." 6. Therefore, the trial of election petition has to be conducted as per Civil Procedure Code but the standard of proof of the charges of corrupt practice shall not be based on mere preponderance or probabilities. Therefore, argument that there should be criminal trial of election petition, if there are charges of corrupt practice is baseless. 7. So far as the mode of recording evidence is concerned, according to Section 87 of the Act, trial of election petition shall be as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Civil Procedure Code. In case of Kailash v. Nanku and Ors. (supra) it has been held that "in election petition under the provisions of the Act, Civil Procedure Code do not apply in its entirety with all its rigidity and technicality. In case of Kailash v. Nanku and Ors. (supra) it has been held that "in election petition under the provisions of the Act, Civil Procedure Code do not apply in its entirety with all its rigidity and technicality. The applicability of Civil Procedure Code is circumscribed on two riders; firstly it is applicable as nearly as may be , and secondly C.P.C. would give way to any provisions of the Act and of any rules made thereunder. C.P.C. applies to trial of election petition with flexibility and only as guidelines. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in above case, the applicability of C.P.C. in the trial of election petition, is with flexibility and only as guidelines." In Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N. v. Union of India (2003) 1 SC 49 it has been held that "about the procedure prescribed in Order 18 Rule 4(1) (as substituted by Act 22 of 2002) and Order 16 Rule 1 and 1-A that Examination-in- chief of witness produced without summons, must be in form of an affidavit; However, in case of summoned witnesses, principle incorporated in Order 18 Rule 4(1) can be waived. Whether a witness shall be directed to file affidavit or be required to be present in the court for recording of evidence, is a matter to be decided by the Court in its discretion having regard to the facts of each case. 8. Order 18 Rule Order 18 Rule 4(1) empowers to decide as to whether evidence of a witness shall be taken either by the court or by the Commissioner." Therefore, after amendment of C.P.C. the Court still has discretion to decide whether the evidence of a witness shall be taken either by the court or by the commissioner. 9. On the basis of above discussion I am of the view that in the election petition the procedure of trial of civil suites in civil case, should be followed as may be applicable as nearly as may be but it does not apply in its entirety with all its rigidity and technicality. 9. On the basis of above discussion I am of the view that in the election petition the procedure of trial of civil suites in civil case, should be followed as may be applicable as nearly as may be but it does not apply in its entirety with all its rigidity and technicality. Therefore, the evidence, in view of the importance and stake in election petition should be recorded by the court and not through the commissioner and not by affidavits and the evidence of the election petition has to be recorded by the Court following the procedure of C.P.C. as nearly as may be keeping in view the provisions of the Representation of People Act. 10. Hence ordered accordingly. C.C. as per rules.