JUDGMENT :

Mitter, J.

1. By this appeal the candidate returned to the Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly from the Tandur Assembly Constituency of that State in 1967 challanges the judgment and order of the High Court setting aside his election on the ground of commission of various corrupt practices thereat.

2. There were three candidates who contested the seat. The appellant secured 29,974 votes against 11, 571 votes polled by the first respondent - the election petitioner, v. Ramachandra Rao and 1526 cast in favour of the second respondent, Siddoramappa. In the election petition filed by the first respondent the appellant was charged with the commission of various corrupt practices all of which were denied by the appellant in his written statement. A large number of issues was framed by the learned trial Judge. For the convenience of the trial, the issues were classified under several broad heads and each act of corrupt practice was the subject-matter of a sub-issue under the classification made by the learned Judge. Some of these sub-issues were decided in favour of the appellant by the learned Judge holding that there was no evidence in support of the grounds urged, while a number of others was so decided on consideration of the evidence adduced. The learned Judge however held that some of the corrupt practices alleged against the appellant had been established as a result of the evidence led. Counsel for the respondent indicated that he would try to support the judgment not only on the issues which had been held against the appellant but also some of those which had been decided in his favour by the learned trial Judge. As the issues are numerous and as the Vol. of evidence adduced at the trial was very considerable, the trial itself spreading over several weeks, we asked learned counsel or the appellant to limit the opening of his appeal to the issues which had been decided against his client and we indicated further that if after hearing counsel for the respondent on these issues we felt inclined to hold that the judgment could not be sustained on the findings on these issues, we would ask learned counsel for the respondent to take up the issues which had been decided in favour of the appellant, leaving it to his counsel to reply thereto to sustain the judgment on those issues.

3. Acting on the above direction, Mr Daphtary, learned counsel for the appellant, argued the appeal only on the issues which had been decided against his client. The issue which he dealt with may, in the words of the learned Judge himself, be stated follows:

1. (f) Did the first respondent by himself or through his agents, commit corruption practice of procuring or obtaining the assistance of persons in the service of Government, as contemplated in Section 123(7) of the Representation of the Pec Act, by acting as mentioned in para 8(e) of the Election Petition filed by organisation, camp at Tandur for free medical aid on 5-2-1967 which resulted in Dr Sudarsan Reddy, President of the branch of the Association, who was in charge of the cam; canvassing for the first respondent?

The second of such issues marked in the trial as Issue III was:

"Whether the first respondent and his agents committed corrupt practices, as contemplated under Sections 123(2)(a)(ii)(e) and (3-A) of the Representation of the People Act by appealing to Muslim voters at a dinner on 19-1-1967 at Tandur, as alleged in para 6 of the election petition?"

Mr Daphtary also addressed us on other issues which had been decided against his client such as Issue II on the question of corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the appellant by directly or indirectly interfering with the free exercise of electoral right of the voters in various ways as mentioned in different clauses of that issue and by the incurring of expenses and distribution of amounts to various persons as mentioned in para 9 of the election petition and failure to include them in his return of election expenses in v