A.N.RAY, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 19/11/1968 of the High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the election petition of the appellant.

(2) THE appellant contested the Assembly seat from Ellenabad Constituency in the District of Hissar in the mid-term election held in May, 1968. The appellant challenged the election of Lalchand, the first respondent. The other defeated candidate in the election was the second respondent Prithvi Raj. The appellant obtained 15,485 votes. The successful candidate Lalchand secured 20,816 votes and Prithvi Raj obtained 5,726 votes. The polling was on 14/05/1968. The results were announced on 16/05/1968.

(3) AT the hearing of the appeal counsel on behalf of the appellant convassed three grounds. First, that the poster being Exhibit P. W. I/I was against the personal character of the appellant and therefore constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning of Ss. (4) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Secondly, the religious head Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Narndhari sect issued an appeal and a carman and thereby the provisions contained in subsection (2) of Section 123 of the Act are attracted. Thirdly, the respondent Lalchand is guilty of corrupt practice of bribery by having given Rs. 20,000.00 in cash to Prithvi Raj to contest the election.

(4) I shall at the outset deal with the second and the third grounds. Counsel on behalf of the appellant pressed allegations contained in subparagraphs (b) and (d) of Paragraph 10 of the petition which were to the effect that Sat Guru Jagjit Singh issued a farman on or about 20 April, 1968, to the effect that it was the Gurus desire that all followers should oppose the appellant who was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal an enemy of Narndhari Guru. Further, if any of the followers did not obey the farman they would stand ex-communicated and their Prasad would not be accepted in the Gurdwaras and that they would be spiritually censured by naming them as traitors of Dharma and be fallen persons in Sabhas of Narndharis. In subparagraph (d) of Paragraphs 10 of the petition it was alleged that on 21/04/1968, the followers of Narndhari sect were called to SantNagar where a big Dewan of Narndharis was convened and Sat Guru Jagjit Singh made a speech there that he had taken a vow to defeat the appellant because he was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal whose family was an avowed enemy of Narndhari sect and that it should be treated as a vow by every Narndhari.

(5) THE respondent Lalchand denied that there was any meeting and further denied that there was any farman.

(6) THE appellant, it may be stated) did not adduce any documentary evidence in support of the allegations. The appellants entire case was based on oral evidence. The appellant relied on the oral testimony of P. W. 29 and P. W. 30. P. W. 29 Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly. Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Congress Committee. He resigned from the Congress and contested the seat as an independent candidate against Choudhury Devi Lal and won the election in the year 1957. An election petition was filed by Choudhuri Devi Lal against the witness Ram Dayal. Ram Dayal was eventually unseated as a result of the decision of this court. The witness Ram Dayal helped the respondent Lalchand in the election of 1967 and also in the mid-term election in the month of May, 1968. The witness Ram Dayal spoke of the Sat Guru Maharaj having exhorted the Narndharis to vote for Lalchand and warned them about the consequences if they failed to do so. The witness also spoke of the meeting at Rania village on 28/04/1968. It is indeed strange and significant that Ram Dayal who supported respondent Lalchand and also attended meetings on his behalf came and gave evidence in favour of the appellant about the utterances of Sat Guru Jag