Judgment

K. S. HEGDE, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS is appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act (1951) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated the 29/03/1968 in Election Petition No. 2 of 1967 on its file. The petition was brought by two electors. It was dismissed by the High Court. As against that order only one of the petitioners has come up in appeal.

( 2 ) THE election petition arose from the election held for a seat to the Delhi Metropolitan Council from the Kalan Masjid constituency. The polling for the said constituency was held on 19/02/1967 and the result of the election was declared on 22/02/1967. In that constituency three persons contested; one Rajesh Sharma was the Congress nominee, the respondent Ram Babu Maheshwari was the Jan Sangh candidate and Z. P. Abbas was the Republican candidate. The respondent secured 7490 votes, Rajesh Sharma 5277 votes and Abbas 3203.

( 3 ) THE defeated candidates have not come forward to challenge the validity of the election. On the other hand two electors from the constituency in question have challenged the election of the respondent primarily on two grounds. Those grounds are; that the returned candidate or his agents with his consent had distributed calendars like Annexure a which amounted to a contravention of S. 123 (2) and (3) of the Act inasmuch as it was an exercise of an undue influence over the Muslim voters and further it amounted to an appeal to Muslim Voters for votes on the basis of a religious symbol. So far as the contravention of S. 123 (2) namely exercise of undue influence is concerned it was not pressed before the trial court nor in this Court. Therefore we shall not consider that part of the case. The second ground urged against the respondent s election was that he or/and his agents or/and other persons with his consent published leaflets similar to Annexure c containing statements of fact which are false and which were either believed to be false or were not believed to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of Rajesh Sharma.

( 4 ) THE High Court has come to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the publication of calendars similar to Annexure a was done either by the respondent or with his consent. So far as leaflets similar to Annexure c is concerned, it has held that there is no satisfactory proof of its publication much less that the same was published with the consent of the returned candidate.

( 5 ) THE questions arising for decision in this case are essentially questions of fact. Their proof depends on oral evidence. Voluminous evidence has been adduced by the parties in this case in support of their respective contentions. The trial court after carefully examining their evidence has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to establish the corrupt practices pleaded by them. This is essentially a finding of fact. This Court ordinarily does not interfere with the findings of fact reached by the High Court in an election petition particularly when the High Court comes to the conclusion that the corrupt practices pleaded are not established. A charge of commission of corrupt practice is akin to a charge of commission of an offence. No satisfactory ground is made out to persuade us to reopen the findings of fact reached by the High Court. The learned trial Judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses examined before him. That circumstance must have aided him in the appreciation of the evidence adduced. It is not said that he had ignored any material piece of evidence or his conclusions are unsupported by evidence. All that is said on behalf of the appellants is that the conclusions reached by the trial Judge on the basis of the evidence on record are not correct and that a different view of the evidence is reasonable. That is not a sufficient ground to interfere with the findings reached by the trial Court.

HAVING laid d