( 1 ) MR Chaudhari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal, resumed his arguments at 10. 30 a. m. and concluded at 12. 45 p. m. Then, Mr Deshpande addressed the Court for a few minutes when the Court dictated the order.

( 2 ) IN this appeal the interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as amended by Act 40 of 1961, has come up for consideration. This case had been tagged on to another case in the case of Abhiram Singh v. C. D. Commachen. Abhiram Singh case has been disposed of as being infructuous. The High Court in the present case has construed the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Act to mean that it will not be a corrupt practice when the voters belonging to some other religion are appealed, other than the religion of the candidate. This construction gains support from a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kanti Prasad jayshanker Yagnik v. Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel as well as the subsequent decision of this Court in Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo (Dr) v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte. In the later decision the speech of the Law minister has been