Judgment

HEGDE, J.: - This is an appeal under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). It arises from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Election Petition No 6 of 1969 on its file In that petition the appellant unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the election of the respondent to the Punjab Legislative Assembly in the mid-term election held in 1969.

2. The appellant and the respondent contested the Gurdaspur Assembly seat in the mid-term election held in 1969. The appellant was the congress nominee and the respondent was the candidate of the Akali party. It is said that he had the support of the Jan Sangh. On other candidate who filed his nomination for that constituency had withdrawn from the contest. It is not necessary to refer to him. Polling took place on February 9, 1969 and the result of the election was declared on February 10, 1969. The appellant secured 20044 votes and the respondent 25501. Hence the respondent was declared elected.

3. The validity of the election of the respondent was challenged by the appellant on various grounds. The trial judge, as mentioned earlier, rejected the petition. In this Court the appellant pressed for our consideration only one of the several grounds urged by him in his petition, and that ground is that the respondent was guilty of a corrupt practice under S. 123 (3) of the Act inasmuch as he exhibited the "Holy Cross", the sacred symbol of the Christians in front of his office for a period of about 15 days prior to the election. The respondent denied this allegation.

4. In support of the allegation relating to the exhibition of the "Holy Cross", the appellant has relied on documentary as well as oral evidence. But before referring to those pieces of evidence, it is necessary to deal with one of the grievances of the appellant. The appellant summoned the Government of Punjab to produce certain reports received by it from the C.I.D. relating to certain agitations said to have been made during the election in connection with the exhibition of the Holy Cross" in front of the respondent s office. The concerned reports were sent to the court under a sealed cover but the Home Secretary claimed privilege in respect of the same on the ground that these documents are unpublished records relating to the affairs of the State. The learned trial judge upheld that claim and hence those documents could not be brought on record.. It contended on behalf of the appellant that the trial court erred in upholding the privilege claimed by the government. It does not appear that the appellant asked the trial judge to peruse the records before considering the question of privilege or hold any enquiry relating to the claim made. In this Court no application has been made to receive any additional evidence nor those reports have been summoned. Those reports are not before us Hence we cannot go into the question whether privilege was properly claimed by the government. Now that we do not have those reports before us, we are unable to differ from the conclusion reached by the trial judge that they are documents relating to the affairs of the State

5. Before we proceed to examine the oral and documentary evidence, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings relating to the charge of corrupt practice with which we are concerned in this case. The relevant averments on this point are found in paragraph 8 (c) of the election petition. Those averments read:

That the respondent, his agents and other persons with the consent of the respondent have committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of S. 123 (3) of the Act by. . .use of the Holy Cross which is a sacred religious symbol of the Christians in order to further the prospects of the respondent s election. The details of the aforesaid corrupt practice are as under.

(c) That the central Election Office of the respondent was situated in a central place Main Bazar, Gurdaspur, where he boldly