Raja Azlan Shah J:

This is an election petition against the respondent who was the successful candidate at the recent general election for the Parliamentary Constituency of Rawang. The petitioner is not the unsuccessful candidate but a voter and active member of the Gerakan Rakyat party.

It is sought to avoid the election on three grounds:-

(i) That corrupt practice was committed in connection with the said election by the respondent or with his knowledge or consent or by any Agent of the respondent by printing, publishing, distributing, posting up or causing to be so printed, published, distributed or posted up before and during the said election handbills and/or advertisements which referred to the said election

and did not bear upon its face the names and addresses of its printers and publishers contrary to s. 11(1)(c) of the Election Offences Act, 1954 (Revised 1969).

(ii) That illegal practice was committed in connection with the said election by the respondent or with his knowledge or consent or by any agent of the respondent by printing, publishing, distributing, posting up or causing to be so printed, published, distributed or posted up before and during the said election handbills and/or advertisements which contained reproduction of what purports to be a ballot paper to be used or likely to be used at such election with the symbol of the respondent's Alliance party and the purported symbol of the Gerakan Rakyat party contrary to s. 3(m) of the said Act.

(iii)That the recount of votes made under reg. 25(8) of the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1959 was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the said Regulations and was thus void, invalid and/ or a nullity and that such non-compliance affected the result of the election.

The petitioner now prays:-

(a) That G T Rajan, the unsuccessful candidate ought to have had or had a majority of lawful votes, and that a scrutiny and/or a recount be ordered.

(b) A declaration that the said G T Rajan was duly elected and ought to have been returned.

(c) A declaration that Tunku Abdullah, the respondent was not duly elected or ought not to have been returned, and/or

(d) A declaration that the election is void.

I will now consider the various allegations in their chronological order.

1. The allegation of corrupt practice under s. 11(1)(c) of the Election Offences Act

It is not disputed that on the evidence seven cards were found to, be in circulation. They did not bear on their surface the names and addresses of the printer and the publisher as required by s. 11(1)(c) of the Act.

The respondent's story is this. On 17 or 18 April 1969, he visited the Alliance office at Rawang. To his annoyance be discovered that the Alliance secretary of the Rawang Branch, Enche Kamaruddin bin Buyong, had caused to be printed 2,500 copies of the impugned cards and had distributed 1,500 to the various sub-branches. That gentleman is not the respondent's electoral agent. I accept the respondent's words that he had given specific instructions that any advertisement, handbills, stickers and any other documents issued by the party must bear the printers' and publishers' name. The uncontroverted fact that all publications, eg booklets, circulars and rubber- stamped documents bearing names and addresses of the printers and publishers is consistent with and lends support to the respondent's evidence. I further accept that the impugned cards were printed without his knowledge and consent and that he was indisposed prior to that date. Any subsequent knowledge of the publications cannot be relevant for the purpose of determining the consent of the candidate prior to the publication. He personally directed the destruction of the remaining copies which were in the office. He then directed the secretary to print a set of similar cards with the name and address of both the printer and publisher. He thought these copies did not violate the provisions of the Act.