( 1. ) THIS appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter described as the Act) arises out of an election petition filed by the appellant-petitioner Habib Bhai challenging the validity of the election of the first respondent Pyarelal on several grounds. The appellant is an elector in the Barpali Constituency and the election which had led to the-present petition was held in the month of February 1962 for the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the said Constituency. As a result of the election, the first respondent was declared: duly elected. He secured 5,671 votes. On recounting of votes made under the direction of the Tribunal, he was found to have secured 5,662 votes. The third respondent Banwarilal was his nearest rival. He was declared to have got 4,716 votes. On recounting, this number increased by five votes. The result remained unchanged.

( 2. ) THE appellants case is that the election of the first respondent Pyarelai was invalid inasmuch as he had practised corrupt practices at the said election. He prayed that the election of the first respondent be declared void and that the third respondent who had secured the next largest number of votes be declared duly elected.

( 3. ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 4 contested the election as independent candidates; respondent 2 Prem singh was the official candidate of the Jan Sangh at the election and third respondent Banwarilal was the official candidate of the Congress Party. Respondent 2 filed his written statement supporting the 1st respondent. He admitted all those allegations to be correct which were urged by the appellant to have been made against his personal character by the 1st respondent. The third respondent filed his written statement supporting the petitioner and took part in the proceedings before the Election Tribunal. After filing his written statement, respondent 2 remained absent. Respondent 4 remained ex parte from the very beginning.

( 4. ) THE Election Tribunal held that the several allegations made by the appellant attributing corrupt practices to the 1st respondent were not proved. In the result, therefore, the election petition was dismissed.

( 5. ) THE election of the first respondent was sought to be set aside on several grounds which included charges of corrupt practices under Section 123 (3) and (4) of the Act alleged to have been committed by the 1st respondent. The material allegations of corrupt practices are those mentioned in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the petition and the question for determination is whether respondent Is election can be held to be vitiated on account of the corrupt practices alleged in these paragraphs.

( 6. ) IT would be useful to quote paragraphs 7, S and 9 of the petition. They read thus:

"7. The respondent No. 1 got printed, published and widely distributed and got distributed throughout the constituency, during the days of election, a poster (filed herewith as Enclosure I ). In the said poster, the respondent No. 1 displayed that he was a member of the Kanwar community and solicited votes for himself inducing and intending to induce thereby the electors belonging to the Kanwar community to vote for respondent No. 1 who belonged to their community. In the said poster, the petitioner, by necessary implication suggested that the respondent No. 3 was distributing money to the electors for securing votes for the (respondent No. 3 ). The respondent No. I and his agent and canvassers published this statement which was false and baseless and, which they knew to be false and had no reason to believe to be true. The statement was calculated to prejudice and did prejudice, the prospects of the election of respondent No. 3. The necessary particulars of these corrupt practices are given in Schedule A filed herewith.

"8. The respondent No. 1 himself, and through his agents and canvassers made a systematic appeal to the electors of the constituency belonging to. . .

. . . . . . the Kanwar community