J.C.SHAH, J.

(1) IN the "mid term elections held in May 1968, Shreo Nath, "Chaudhri Ranbir Singh and Balwant Singh wore the contestants for a seat in the Haryana Legislative Assembly. The date of polling of votes was 14/05/1968. Chaudhry Ranbir Singh polled 18,751 votes, Shreo Nath polled 17, 025 votes and Balwant Singh polled only 335 voles. The respondent Chaudhry Ranbir Singh was declared elected.

(2) SHREO Nath who will hereinafter be ; called the appellantfiled petition in the High court of Punjab. and Haryana to set aside the election on the grounds, inter alia, that Chaudhry Ranbir Singh hereinafter called the respondent and his agents had in the course of the election campaign committed corrupt practices defined in. Section 123(2), (4). (5) and (6) of the Representation of tlia People Act, 1951. The High court dismissed the petition. The appellant appeals to this court under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act. 1951.

(3) THE principal allegations made in the petition were :

(1) that the respondent employed for use in his election campaign a three wheeled motor vehicle No PNR-3414 popularly known as TEMPO. This vehicle was used for transporting voters on the date of polling from their fields to the polling booths in the village Pakasma. The vehicle was owned and driven by one Om Prakash at the relevant time [vide paragraph 9(H)(f)(i)] and the respondent paid 0m Prakash "Rs. l,800/ or 1,900" for the use of the vehicle in the course of the election campaign. This amount was not included in the election expenses of the respondent furnished under Section 77 of the Act. If included, the total expenditure incurred by the respondent would have exceeded the amount permissible under the Act : Paragraph 9(f)(v) ;

(2) that the respondent and his agents threatened certain voters with "dire consequences if they did not vote for" the respondent at the election: vide Paragraph 9(B)(a)(i)(2). (No details of this alleged corrupt practice need be set out because the finding against the appellant recorded by the High court has not been challenged before us in this appeal) ;

(3) that the respondent and his supporters "exercised undue influence by directly interfering with the free exercise of the electoral rights of Harijan voters". They issued a false appeal in the name of one Chand Ram leader of the Harijans. Leaflets were printed at the instance of the respondent and were widely distributed in the constituency. Paragraph 9{B)(c) (3) and (5). By publishing the leaflet the respondent committed a corrupt practice as defined in Section 123(4) of the Act in that the leaflet contained a false appeal in the name of Chand Ram who had never authorised the issue of such an appeal to vote for the respondent. In the leaflet, it was stated that Chand Ram held the opinion that the appellant was a member of the Samyukt Dal and that he the appellant had committed "atrocities on poor Harijans" ;

(4) that the respondent engaged certain person? called "Bhajniks". One of the parties of Bhajniks headed by Jianand was employed for the period 18/04/196 8/05/1968, and the respondent paid him Rs. 2,400.00 at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per day, but a receipt was taken from Jianand for Rs. 300.00 only. If the true amount paid to Jianand was taken into account and added to the amount ofRs. 3,959-03 disclosed in the statement of election expenses filed by the respondent, the total expenditure incurred would have exceeded the permissible limit under the Act.

These allegations constituting corrupt practices and infraction of the law were denied by the respondent. The High court substantially upheld the contentions of the respondent.

(4) A plea in an election petition that a candidate or his election agent or any person with his consent has committed a corrupt practice raises a grave charge, proof of which results in disqualification from taking part in elections for six years. The charge in its ver