The burden of proof in election petitions for corrupt practices lies with the petitioner, requiring evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.

1. The petitioner who obtained the next highest number of votes claims that the election of the returned candidate, the respondent herein, from the Trippunithura Constituency is liable to be declared void because, as averred in the petition, the 1st respondent committed the corrupt practice mentioned in S.123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the Act) by publication of Ext. P1 leaflet and its distribution by his agents and other persons with his or his election agent's consent. According to the petitioner the 1st respondent is also guilty of the commission of the corrupt practices mentioned in sub-sections (3) and(3A) of S.125, the allegation being that the 1st respondent spoke at an election meeting as reported in Ext. P7 (a) in Ext. P7 newspaper. He has also a case that the N. G. O. Unions issued a circular and the same constitutes the corrupt practice stated in S.123(7). His further case is that the Returning Officer failed to comply with rules 55 to 63 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter, the Rules) and that the counting personnel helped the respondent while sorting and counting the ballot papers. It is also averred that he did not get clear 21 days time for election propaganda.

2. The respondent denies all the material allegations mentioned above. The following issues were raised in this case after hearing the learned counsel on both sides:
1. Has the respondent or his agents or other persons with his knowledge and consent caused to be published or distributed the pamphlet Annexure I or any similar pamphlet, and thereby committed a corrupt practice under S.123(4) of the Representation of the People Act. 1951?
2. Did the respondent make an election speech at Thekkumbhagam in Puthiyakavu at which he spoke the words quoted in para 3(B) of the election petition and thereby committed a corrupt practice under S.123(3) and 123(3A) of the R. P. Act, 1951?
3. Is there non compliance with the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 in the counting of votes?
4. Is there any irregularity in the counting of votes for the No. 75 Trippunithura Assembly Constituency?
5. Did the N. G. O. Union issue any circular as mentioned in para 7 of the election petition and if so, does it amount to a corrupt practice under S.123(7) of the R. P. Act, 1951?
6 Was the petitioner denied the facility to conduct election propaganda on the 5th and 6th of January 1980 and was there any violation of the provisions of the R. P. Act and Conduct of Elections Rules on this account?
7. If the above issues are answered in the affirmative, is the petitioner entitled to a declaration that the election of the respondent is void?
8. If Issues 5 and 6 are answered in the affirmative, is the petitioner entitled to a declaration that the respondent's election is void for the reason that the election has been materially affected on these grounds and for these reasons?
9. What is the order as to costs?

3. Issue 1: This issue relates to Ext. PI leaflet, and its publication and distribution. That Ext. PI contains slanderous statements in relation to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner who was contesting the election is admitted by the respondent. However he refutes the allegation that himself, his election agent or other persons, be they his agents or not, with his or his election agent's consent caused the same to be published or distributed. This question has to be considered with reference to S.100(1)(b) and S.100(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

4. Under S.100(1)(b) of the Act commission of a corrupt practice by the returned candidate or his election agent as also by any person with the consent of either of them is a ground for declaring the election of the returned candidate void. The first question that falls to be decided is as to whether the petitioner has succeeded in proving that the respondent or his election agent, or any person with the consent of either of them has published and distributed Ext. P1 leaflet.

5. Ext. P1 does not di