The burden of proof in election petitions alleging corrupt practices is on the petitioner, it never shifts and the standard of proof to discharge this burden is the same as in criminal cases, that is, the matter requiring proof should be established beyond any reasonable doubt and that in case of doubt the benefit should go to the respondent.

BARMAN, J.

( 1 ) THE election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly of the Respondent Chittaranjan naik from Binjharpur constituency in the mid-term election held in June, 1961 was challenged by the petitioner (appellant herein) Bankabehari Das, one of the defeated candidates, on several grounds stated in the election petition.

( 2 ) OUT of the numerous grounds on which the election of the respondent was challenged, the peti-tioner confined himself to only a few grounds so far as this appeal is concerned. The only grounds on which the petitioner relies herein are shortly stated these ; that the respondent was disqualified for the membership of the; State Legislature under Section 7 (e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by reason of his having been the Managing Director of kalinga Foundry Ltd. at Dhenkanal in the district of Cuttack in which the government of Orissa is said to have majority shares in the capital; that the respondent committed certain corrupt practices of bribery after the nomination and before the date of election --all as stated in the election petition. The petitioner confined himself to only three instances of alleged bribery, namely, the respondent's alleged offer or promise of Rs. 500/-and conveyances, and alleged actual payment of Rs. 200/- and supply of jeeps for the cultural conference at ban; the respondent's alleged promise of payment of money as gratification towards the cost of radio battery at village Tauntara and subsequent payment by the respondent of money with which the battery is said to have been purchased; the respondent's alleged promise of gratification by circulating a pamphlet entitled "more Binjharpur Karyakrama" (My Binjharpur Programme) in which the respondent made several promises to the electors as fully stated therein --all with the alleged object, directly or indirectly, of inducing electors to vote for the respondent. The respondent denied that he was disqualified or that he had committed any corrupt practice of bribery as alleged or at all. The election Tirbunal decided against the petitioner on each of the grounds and dismissed the election petition. The Tribunal found that no corrupt practice is proved. It is against this decision of the Tribunal that this appeal has been filed by the petitioner (appellant herein ).

( 3 ) IN course of hearing of this appeal one of the main points urged on behalf of the respondent was that the charges of corrupt practices being quasi criminal in

character, the allegations relating thereto should have been sufficiently clear and precise to bring home the charges to the candidate, and that judged by that standard the allegations in the original petition, before amendment, were wholly insufficient. It was contended that the Tribunal should not have allowed the amendment of the election petition. Apart from undue delay for which there is said to be no reasonable explanation and the question of limitation, the point raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the amendment purporting to be in exercise of its power under section 90 (5) of the Act. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the amendment did not introduce new grounds of attack but mere fresh instances of the already alleged corrupt practices of bribery in the original petition. The respondent's point, on the other hand, was that the amendment introduced new grounds of attack not permissible under the law. Both sides argued and cited authorities in support of their rival contentions. In view of our decision, on merits, against the petitioner, we do not think it necessary to embark upon a discussion of these points on amendments.

( 4 ) THIS leads me to the consideration of this appeal on merits.

( 5 ) RE : Respondent's alleged disqualification for membership of the State legislature by reason of his having been the Managing Director of Kalinga Foundry limited as alleged. Section 7 (e) of the Act, so far as material for