V. BHARGAVA, J.

(1) THE appellant, Rao Nihal Sigh) respondent No. 1, Rao Birendra Singh and respondent No. 2, Manohar, were candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly for the State of Haryana from Atoli Constituency during the mid-term election held in the month of May, 1968. Polling. took place on the 11th May, 1968 and the result was declared on the 15/05/1968. The appellant received 15,937 votes, respondent No. 1 23,673 votes, and Manohar 455 votes. Consequently, respondent No. 1 was declared as the successful candidate. An Election Petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act") was then filed by the appellant challenging the election of respondent No. 1 primarily on grounds of commission of corrupt practices which were all denied by respondent No. 1. The High court of Punjab and Haryana, In the trial of the petition, framed four issues, but issue No. 4 was not pressed in that court, and, consequently, it was not dealt with in the judgment of the High court. That court recorded findings on three issues: one of them was not pressed before us by the counsel for the appellant and was given up. Consequently, we reproduce below the only two issues on which arguments have been addressed to us in support of this appeal :

"(1) Whether respondent No. 1 is guilty of corrupt practices as alleged in Paragraph 6(A) within the meaning of Section 123(3) and (4) of the Act ?

(2) Whether respondent No. 1 has committed the corrupt practice of hiring or procuring the vehicles for the free conveyance of electors as detailed in Paragraph 6(F) within the meaning of Section 123(5) of the Act ?"

On both these issues, the High court recorded findings against the appellant and, consequently, dismissed the election petition. The appellant has come up to this court in this appeal under Section 116-A of the Act against that judgment of the High court.

(2) UNDER the first issue, counsel appearing for the appellant, on the basis of the pleadings, urged that two different sets of corrupt practices had been alleged in Paragraph 6-A, and argued that the High court was wrong in rejecting one and in not recording any finding on the other. One allegation was that a pamphlet or poster Ext. P. W. 20/1 was got printed and published by one Raghbir Singh with the consent and connivance of respondent No. 1 and it contained allegations against the appellant as to his personal character and conduct which respondent No. 1 and Raghbir Singh knew to be false and baseless so as to adversely affect the prospects of the election of the appellant, constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act. It was further urged that this poster contained an appeal on the ground of caste and activities of the appellant and respondent No. 1 in respect of members of their caste so as to persuade voters not to vote for the appellant and to vote for respondent No. 1, thus constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act. The finding in respect of these charges relating to the poster is that there is no satisfactory proof that it was got printed, published or was distributed before the polling took place and, consequently, the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that. those corrupt practices had been committed.

(3) THE second set of allegations related to holding of meetings by respondent No. 1 or his workers at which respondent No. 1 was present and in which speeches were made in order to influence the voters on the same grounds as are contained in the poster Ext. P. W. 20/1. The High court, in the judgment, did mention at one stage that such a plea of speeches in the meetings had been raised in the election petition and denied by respondent No. 1 ; but, after recording the finding on the first set of corrupt practices, the High court ignored altogether this allegation about commission of corrupt practices by oral speeches in the meetings.

(4) ON the ques