HARBANS SINGH, J.

1. In the above-mentioned election petition filed by the defeated candidate Tarlochan Singh for setting aside the election of Karnail Singh from Pakka Kalan Constituency of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, one of the allegations was that the respondent entered into an agreement with the Harijan voters of village Jodhpur Ramana through their leaders Sunder Singh and Munsha Singh to place at the disposal of the Harijan community Rs. 1,500, for the construction of their dharamsala for a consideration of the Harijan villagers voting for him. Sunder Singh and Munsha Singh above mentioned were examined by the petitioner and they admitted that the Harijans had all decided to vote for a candidate who would assist them in getting their dharamsala erected and these two persons met Karnail Singh, respondent, at the house of Ganda Singh, the evening before the date of polling and demanded Rs. 2,000 for the dharamsala. Bargain was settled for Rs. 1,500, which amount was paid by Karnail Singh. In the petition it was alleged that the aforesaid amount was left in deposit with one Manohar Lal, brick-kiln owner, for supply of bricks, but in the trial the evidence led was to the effect that the money was left in deposit with Ganda Singh, who subsequently supplied the bricks, iron girders as well as paid for the labour of the masons. Apart from the question of this discrepancy between the two versions, with which we are not concerned, the question arose as to whether these two witnesses were accomplices, and, if so, whether the rule, which is well settled so far as the criminal cases are concerned, that the evidence of an accomplice requires independent corroboration in material particulars, is applicable to the trial of an election petition, to which Civil Procedure Code applies.

2. One Ajaib Singh, a relation of Ganda Singh, also appeared as a witness and said that he was present at the time of the aforesaid bargain between the Harijan leaders and the respondent. He admitted that he did not raise any objection at that time, nor did he inform the petitioner subsequently. Qua him also, a question was raised on behalf of the respondent that he also was no better than an accomplice, whose evidence could not be treated as an independent corroboration.

3. Lastly, an argument was raised on behalf of the respondent, that in any case even according to the allegations of the petitioner, which were stoutly denied by the respondent, the gift of Rs. 1,500 was made for the benefit of the entire Harijan community and not to any individual or individuals and that consequently such a gift could not fall within the definition of bribery as given in Clause (A) of sub-section (1) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as an Act). As I considered these matters to be of considerable importance, the following three questions were referred by me for an authoritative decision by a larger Bench and that is how the matter is before us:-

(1) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, Munsha Singh and Sunder Singh fall in the category of accomplices and, if so, whether the rule applicable to criminal trials requiring independent corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice, holds good in the case of election petitions in relation to a charge of a corrupt practice of bribery?

(2) Whether, in the circumstances of this case, Ajaib Singh would also fall in the category of an accomplice?

(3) Whether a gift or promise made for a public purpose and not for the benefit of any individual or individuals, but the object of which is to make himself popular amongst a section of the electorate as a whole and thus directly or indirectly induce them to vote in his favour, would fall within the definition of bribery as given in Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act or not?

4. Apart from any special provisions made in the Act, the trial of the election petition is governed by the procedure laid down in