( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under the Representation of the People Act against an order of the Election tribunal Bijnor dismissing an election petition.

( 2 ) OF a number of candidates for election to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from the Dehra Dun city constituency, the first respondent Brij Bhushan Sharma was declared elected. His election was challenged by an election petition filed by the present appellants, and among the several allegations contained in that petition it was alleged in paragraph 4 (F) : "because respondent No. 1 through his agent and worker Shri Katuri Vaid, who is also president of City Congress Committee with the consent and connivance of respondent No. 1 threatened on the 15th February, 1962, at Dharampur, Dehra Dun, one Sri Jai Lal Khandelwal, an elector that his bones would be broken if he did not cast his vote for respondent No. 1 and also did not work for him and persuade others to vote for him. "

( 3 ) A number of persons were impleaded as respondents to the election petition but Raturi Vaid was not impleaded. The first respondent raised an objection in his written statement that the election petition was liable to be dismissed on account of the omission to implead Raturi Vaid as respondent. The Election Tribunal framed a number of issues, including an issue on this question, and ultimately held that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the said Raturi Vaid.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has contended before us that the provisions of Section 82 (b) were not attracted in the present case. He urges firstly that no corrupt practice can be said to have been alleged in paragraph 4 (F) of the election petition. This contention cannot be accepted. Paraphrased, paragraph 4 (F) is to the effect that the first respondent employed Raturi vaid to threaten one Jailal Khandelwal, an elector, with physical injury if he did not cast his vote for the first respondent. We are of the opinion that the corrupt practice referred to in Section 123 (2) is clearly indicated in this allegation. That provision reads "123. The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practice for the purposes of this Act : (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right : provided that : (a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who : (i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social obstracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community. (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " to us it appears plain that the threat which is mentioned in paragraph 4 (F) constitutes a corrupt practice.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel next contends that assuming that Paragraph 4 (F) refers to a corrupt practice, it is a corrupt practice which has been alleged against the first respondent and not against Raturi vaid. We are unable to accept this contention either. An allegation of corrupt practice has been made against Raturi Vaid, because it is he who it is said, threatened Jailal Khandelwal, an elector, with physical injury in case he did not vote for the first respondent. He may have been employed for the purpose by the first respondent, but it is none-the-less Raturi Vaid who theatened the elector. It cannot be said that a corrupt practice has not been alleged against Raturi vaid.

( 6 ) THEN if is argued that Raturi Vaid is alleged to have committed this corrupt practice not as a candidate but in some other capacity. It is urged that the provisions of Section 82 (b) require that the allegation of corrupt practice must be made by a candidate, and Raturi Vaid, whe