Judgment

SHARMA, J.:- This, appeal under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court under S. 98 of the said Act dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant, challenging the election of the respondent No. 1 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1985 from Metapally constituency. Besides the appellant and the respondent No. 1, there were several other contestants at the said election. The appellant was a member of the Rashtriya Sanjay Manch of which Smt. Menaka Gandhi was the leader, and the respondent No. 1 was the candidate of the Bharatiya Janatha Party, which was in alliance with the Telugu Desam Party. The poll was held on 5-3-1985, the result in favour of the respondent No. 1 announced on 6-3-1985 and the present election petition was filed by the appellant on 9-4-1985 alleging corrupt practices.

2. The petitioner made following allegations in support of his charge of corrupt practices :-

i) The respondent No. 1 was guilty of spending in connection with the said election a sum exceeding the amount prescribed under S. 77 of the Act;

ii) With a view to counterweigh the impact created by Smt. Menaka Gandhi who toured the constituency and addressed public meetings in support of the candidature of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 invited Sri Murali Mohan, a popular Telugu cinema actor, who in the afternoon of February 26, 1985 made a speech unjustly criticising Smt. Menaka Gandhi and the Sikh community and made statements amounting to corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-sections (3) and (3A) of S. 123 of the Act;

iii) Sri Murali Mohan, at the instance of first respondent, declared Sri N. T. Ramarao, Telugu Desam leader, as the incarnation of God, Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, etc. and exhorted the electors to vote for the first respondent on that basis;

iv) A large number of booklets containing the photographs of Sri N. T. Ramarao in the roles of Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, etc. and the last page photograph with a caption "Telugu Desam Vijay Sarathi" (meaning a man who leads Telugu Desam to victory) was distributed in the said meeting. The respondent No. 1 thus indulged in the corrupt practice within the meaning of S. 123 (4) of the Act;

v) The first respondent resorted to false impersonation of the electors, captured booths and got false votes polled;

vi) The first respondent distributed Arrack amongst the voters with a view to control the votes; and

vii) The respondent No. 1 attacked the jeep 01 the petitioner and caused damage thereto with a view to prevent him from canvassing.

3. The petitioner also accused the Returning Officer in the matter of counting oil the votes but, since this point has not been pressed before us, it is not necessary to mention the details.

4. The respondent No. 1, who was elected as the successful candidate, denied specifically the allegations made against him. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, rejected the petitioners election petition.

5. After a consideration of the evidence, the High Court has held that the total expenditure incurred by the respondent No. 1 in the election did not exceed the prescribed limit. Some entries in certain documents relied upon by the petitioner were held to be forgeries. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing before us has not challenged the High Courts findings on this issue, it is not necessary to discuss the point any further.

6. With respect to the petitioners case about the contents of the speech of Sri Murali Mohan in the public meeting on February 26, 1985, it was held that the petitioner failed to lead sufficient evidence to sustain a finding in his favour. On the question of distribution of booklets, containing the photographs of N. T. Ramarao in the roles of Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and others, the High Court agreed the petitioner that the booklets were, in fact, distributed in the said meeting with an object to appeal to the religious faith