Judgment

SHELAT, J.-This appeal is against the order of the High Court of Patna declaring the appellant s election from Barhara Assembly constituency, Bihar, void under Section 100(1) of the Representation of the People Act, XLIII of 1951.

2. At the time of the general election in February, 1967, the appellant was the Minister of State in the Finance Department of the State of Bihar. There were in all 8 candidates contesting from Barhara constituency. The poll day was Feburary 15, 1967. Having obtained 21,791 votes against 20,243 votes obtained by respondent 1 (the election petitioner), the appellant was declared elected.

3. In the election petition filed by Respondent 1 thereafter, he made a number of allegations of diverse corrupt practices giving particulars thereof in more than 10 schedules. In his written statement the appellant denied all these allegations and also filed a recriminatory petition under Section 97 of the Act. On these pleadings the High Court raised as many as 13 issues. The parties examined 292 witnesses in all besides producing documentary evidence. In an elaborate judgment, the High Court after examining the voluminous evidence led by the parties held the appellant guilty of 3 corrupt practices, namely, of distributing money to Harijan voters in various villages as bribery, of having canvassed on the basis of his caste, namely, Rajput, and of having obtained or procured the assistance of 4 gazetted officers, namely, R. Ws. Sheo Bachan Singh, Muni Lal, R. S. Prasad and Bhupender Narain Singh, all of whom except Muni Lal being in the Department of Commercial Taxes which was under the charge of the appellant. The High Court declined to uphold the rest of the allegations on one ground or the other. The recriminatory petition filed by the appellant was not pressed and was accordingly dismissed. Consequently, we are concerned in this appeal with the aforesaid 3 alleged corrupt practices held by the High Court established. The question for determination is, therefore, whether the High Court was correct in holding the appellant guilty of the said three practices.

4. Section 100(1) of the Act inter alia provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the High Court is of opinion that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent or that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, it shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. Section 123 enumerates various corrupt practices including bribery, appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his caste or community for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate, and the obtaining or procuring by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent any assistance other than the giving of vote for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate s election from any person in the service of the Government and belonging inter alia to the class of gazetted officers.

5. On the question of bribery to Harijan voters the evidence fell into two categories : one alleging that money was distributed amongst the Harijans in the presence of the appellant, and the other alleging distribution by Ram Bilas Singh, the appellant s election agent and his other agents. As regards the first category of evidence, there was only one witness, P. W. 111 of Barhara who deposed that it was in the presence of the appellant and the gram sevak of Barhara that the appellant s agent Tapeshwar, R. W. 67, distr