1. We are concerned in this appeal with an election from the Nagpur-Umrer Parliamentary Constituency held to fill a casual vacancy in the House of the People as required by Section 149 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (Act No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The following dates are material for the purposes of the appeal:

The notification cal-

ling upon the Constitu-

ency to fill the vacancy

(under S. 149 of the Act)

was issued on 10th December 1958

The last date for fil-

ing nominations by can-

didates standing for the

election (under S. 30) was 20th December 1958

The last date for

withdrawing ones candi-

dature (under S. 37) was 26th December 1958

The actual polling at

the election (under S. 56) 31st January and

took place on 1st February 1959.

The counting of votes was commenced on 2nd February, 1959 and completed by 3rd February, 1959 on which date the result of the election was declared.

3. At the election, the contest was between three persons. They were (1) the respondent Madhav Shrihari Aney who was supported by the Congress Party and by the Vidarbha Andolan Samiti; (2) Raja-bhau Khobragade who was supported by the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti; and (3) Haridas Damaji Awade who stood as an independent candidate. There was a fourth person who had filed his nomination, N.L. Belekar, but he withdrew his candidature within the time allowed and was not a contesting candidate. The successful candidate was the respondent M.S. Aney, who secured 1,27,025 votes, Rajabhau Khobragade secured 68,957 votes and Haridas Damaji Awade secured 11,448 votes.

4. Consequent upon the declaration of the result of the election, a petition was presented under Section 81 of the Act on 18-3-1959 by the appellant Baburao Tatyaji Bhonsale praying that the election of the respondent should be declared void. There was no prayer that any other candidate standing for the election should be declared elected as contemplated by Section 82(a) of the Act.

5. In the election petition the appellant-petitioner claimed that he was a voter whose name was duly entered in the electoral roll of the said Constituency, a fact which is not in dispute before us. According to the petitioner, the respondents election was liable to he declared void because either the respondent or his agents and other persons working for him were guilty of certain corrupt practices as defined in Section 123 of the Act.

6. The allegations in the petition are brief and it is worthwhile reproducing the material paragraph because most of the questions argued in appeal turn upon the recitals in that paragraph. In paragraph 6 of the petition, the petitioner staled his case regarding corrupt practices as follows:

""In the course of the propaganda carried on by the respondent for his election, systematic appeals were made by the respondent and with the consent of the respondent by his agents and other persons who were canvassing votes for him, to vote for the respondent and to refrain from voting for Shri Raja-bhau Khobragade on grounds of caste, race, community and religion. The respondent and with his consent his agents and other persons working for him used the election symbol of the respondent, viz., two bullocks with yoke on and appealed to it as a symbol of Buddhist religion and the Hindu religious symbol of cow was used and appeal made to it for the furtherance of the prospects of the respondents election. These appeals, uses and appeals were made at various meetings held at Nagpur and other places, particulars of which are given in Schedule I, by articles and items published in the newspapers (filed herewith) viz., Dainik Vidarbha Andolan and Daily Maharashtra, published at Nagpur, particulars of which are given in Schedule II and by pamphlets and handbills published at Nagpur, the particulars of which are given in Schedule III"".

7. In paragraph 7 of the petition, the petitioner also alleged other forms of corrupt practices with the det