Holding

The election petitioner must prove corrupt practice, and the evidence was insufficient to show that the gifts were given to induce votes, so no corrupt practice was established.

Summary

In the 1982 Nagaland Legislative Assembly election, N. Horangse was declared elected over M. Tsubongse. Tsubongse filed an election petition alleging that Horangse committed corrupt practice by presenting four red waist‑coats to village leaders to induce their votes, invoking sections 123(1), 123(3A) and 123(6) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Gauhati High Court held the allegation proved and set aside Horangse's election. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner bore the burden of proving the corrupt practice and whether the evidence showed the gifts were given to procure votes rather than as a customary exchange. The Court found the petitioner’s evidence unreliable, noted that the custom of gift‑giving among Nagas negated the inference of inducement, and held that the burden of proof lay on the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored Horangse’s election and set aside the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the presentation of red waist‑coats constitutes a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Whether the burden of proof of corrupt practice lies on the election petitioner.
Whether the evidence adduced was sufficient to prove that the gifts were given to induce votes.
Whether a customary practice of gift‑giving can defeat a finding of corrupt practice.

Legislation cited

Representation of People Act, 1951s. 123(1), s. 123(3A), s. 123(6)

Subjects

election lawcorrupt practiceburden of proofcustomary gift‑givingRepresentation of People Actelection petitionSupreme Court

Judgment

A
N. HORANGsil

v,

M. TSUBONGSE
B

March 13, 1985

[S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ,J.
c
Election law-Corrupt practics uT1der section 123( I), 123 (JA) and 123
(6) of the Represetation of People Act, 1951-Appreciation of evidence-Burden
of,proof of election of Corrupt practice· is upon the election petitioner and not
upon the elected candidate-Presentation by way of exchange of giftJ under
.the custom of the village long before the election process co1nmenced and given
D not to procure votes or to induce the recepients to cast their votes cannot fall
under expression "corrupt practice!'.

Ts:Jbongse the election petitioner and the respondent herein who contes-

E
ted from the Longkhim-Chre constitutency of the Nagaland Legislative
Assembly as a Congress (I) candidate in the election held on 10.11.82 lost by
,__
< a margin of ·133 votes to Horangse the appellant and who was the Deputy
Speal(er of the last legislative Assembly. The respondent filed· an election
petition on the ground that the app~llant was guilty of four instances of cor-
rupt practice falling under Section 123(1) of the Representation of People Act,
1951 and on three other grounds, namely; (1) display of a 'banner with the
caption "do not sell Nagaland to India", a corrupt practice within the meaning
F of Section 123 (3A) of the Act ; (2) exceeding the limit of expenditure amoun-
ting to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(6) of the Act and
(3) use of government vehicles for the purpose of the election. The learned
Single Judge, who tried the election petition, found only one of the aforesaid
grounds of corroupt practice, namely, presentation of four red waist coats
proved and the other grounds not proved, and therefore, he a'lowed the el~ction
petition and set aside the appellant'S election on that ground. Hence the
G appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

+
HELD :In an electiort petition, the petitioner who a1teges corrupt practice
H must prove his case which is disputed by the returned candidate indepin-'
N. HORANGSE V. M. TSUBONGSE 343.
dently or the fact whether the returned candidate has proved his defence or
not. [348E] A
Here. on the evidence of R.Ws. 1 to 5, the appellant gOt the ~aist coats
d~stributed thro'ugh P.W. 14 who was then a staunch worker of the Naga
National Democratic Party in September, 1982 long before the election process
bad started, as per the custom of Nagas to make gifts in return for the gifts
ieceived by dignitaries. The evidence let in by the respondent election peti-
tion~r to prove the item of alleged corrupt practic~ on the part of the appel- B
lant "is wholly insufficient and unacceptable to prove the charge Satisfactorily.
Though in the election petition it is clearly alleged that the app'el1ant gave red
waist coats to P.Ws. 11 to·13 and Lithsabha at 4 p.m. on 27.J0.82 for in-
, ducing them to cast their votes in his favour in the presence of P.Ws. 14 and
~15 and they witnessed the offer '.3.nd, reported the matter subseq~ently to the
reSpondent, P. ·Ws. 14 and 15 do not claim in their evidence personal knowledge
about the offer on presentation of the waist coats by the appellant to these four c
persons ·and about the. inducement of the appellant to cast their votes in (avour.
Admittedly, P.W. 14 had asked P.Ws. II, 12 and 13 to remember the date and
( time· of the appellant's visit to their houses where hec laiffis to have gone aloilg-
with P.W. 15 soon after the departure of the appellant from each of those
places. It is clear that these three witnesses, P.Ws. 11 to 13 have mentioned
the date and month of the appellant's visit only on the basis of what P.W. 14
told them to remember. p, W. 14 who was a staunch worker of the NNDP D
and had switched over to the Congress (I) Party to which P.W. 15 belongs,
sometime before the election, and P.W. 16 are interested witnesses. P.w~·15
has stated in his evidence that the· appellant "appealed ti:> the'people of the
'village to cast their votes in his favour and that he went to the houses of P.Ws ..
11to13 .in Lirise village only·thereafter. If that is so, it is not likely that the
appellant, then the Deputy Speaker would have .carried the ·gunny or hessian
bag containing the waist coats himself without being accompanied even by a E
single worker .or sympathiser of the NNDP when he is stated to have ~isite"d
those four houses for presenting the waist coats arid inducing the recipients to
cast their votes in his favour. The evidence of P.Ws. 11 to 13 that· P.Ws. 14
and 15 came to their houses within minutes after the appellant left the places
, and asked them about what had been given .to. them by the appellant and· that
~-.:.when they told them ·th~t red waist coats have been given to then1 with a
,,,.,;;· request to favour him with their votes, <;lnd they asked them to rcme~ber the F
dcite and time and not to deny the matter later-P.W. 14 has stated so in his
evidence-is artificial .·and unreliable. The evidence of P.Ws. 11tO15 about'
the date of the appetTant's ~isit to Lirise village and the·presentation of the red
waist cOates to P.vis. 11 to 13 and another is equally not impressive. There- -
fOre, the appellant cannot be said to have com::nitted any "corrupt pr<ictice".
. . . . [35JB-C; jsoc':-H]
.Civ1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil.Appeal No. I236(Nce)
m1ns ·
Appeal under Section JI 6A o.f the R.P. Act from the order
date 1.2.84 of the Gauh~ti High Court iri E.P. No. 3 of 1983.
C. S. Vaidyanathan for the Appellant.
Kapi/ Sibal, K. K. Lahiri and Mrs. Manik Karanjwala for the.
Resppndent. H
· The Jud~IJ!~ll\ pf the Co\lf\ \"~~ delivered by
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.ll.
,A
. ' .
·. VAJiAoARAJ>.N, J. This appeal by the respondent· iii Election
Petition No.' 3 of 1983 on the file of Gauhati High Court is directed -)..
-: against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, allowing the election
'petition and setting aside the election of the appellant Horangse
from the Longkhim-Chre constituency of the Nagaland ·Legislative
B 'Assembly on the ground of corrupt practice, namely, presentation of
".
four red-waist-Coats to three Gaon Burahs and one Barik of Lirise
: village 'on. 27-10-1982 ·to induce them to cast their votes in his '
·favour. ·
·.:.,, . 'The respondent/election ·petitioner, M. Tsubongse who con.tes- ~
•.too as a Congress (I) candidate lost to the appellant who contested
·::,as a Naga National Democratic Party candidate (for short 'NNDP')
by_ a margin of 133 votes in the election held on 10-11-1982. He
:filed hb election petition seeking the appellant's election to be set
: ~side on the ground that he was guilty of four instances of corrupt
''practice falling under s: I 23(1) of the Representation of People Act,
'· 1951 (for·short 'the Act') and oii-three other_ grounds, namely : (1)
·: display of a banner with the caption "Do not sell Nagaland to
'.~India", a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. -123(3A) of the r•
;;Act. (2) exceeding the limit ' of expenditure amounting to corrupt
practice within the meaning of s. 123(6) of the Act and (3) use of
"government vehicles for the purpose of the election. The learned
__,E '·-Single Judge, who tried the election petition, found only one of the
· ,\· afore~aid
.. - ·- -· grounds
. '
of corrupt
.
practice, namely, presentation of four
. _red waist coats proved.and the other grounds not proved, and. he
:-allowed the election petition and set aside the appellant's election on
. -that ground. It is, .therefore, necessary to set out the case of the

..F
:
.
.'parties briefly in regard to this single ground.
' ·, _., .. . .
.
c • The result of the eleciion held on -10-11-1982 was announ~ed.
}-

' . " . 'on-the day of counting'12-11-1982 by the Returning Officer, Tuesung.
':The respondent had secured 3082 valid 'votes while. the appellant,
:Who \Vas the .. Deputy Speaker of the last Legislative Assembly of
--.--:Nagaland had secured 3215 vaiid votes and was declared elected by
.-·a majority of 133 votes. _The respondent alleged in th e election
petition that the appellant gave four red waist coats to the voters
LiSechem, P.W. 1I, Lithrongse, P.W. 12, Murimong, P.W.13 and
-Lithsaba'ai 4.00 p.m: cin 27-10-i982 ·for inducing them to cast theif .,,. _
votes in bis favour in' the presence of B. Tsarise, P. W. 14 and Tselo. ..-f"
,._ngse, P.W.15 of Lirise village who witnessed the offer and reported .
H the matter later to the respondent. · · · '
1l
''..
. N. HORANGSE v. M. TSUBONGSE (Varadorajan, J.) 345

The appellant denied that the waist coats were given either by A
·himself or in order to induce the recipients to cast their votes in his
·favour. His case was that he visited Lirise village some time prior
: to,October 1982 and was received by the villagers wko considered
. him as one of their leaders. In view of the custom of Nagas to ·
, , receive guests or others and exchange gifts, he sent five waist coats .
. ; to be given to four Gaon Burahs and the eldest Barik of the village n
_long before.the election process started. The waist coats ware not
· _given to procure votCs or to induce the recipients to cast their votes
in his favour. Thus be denied that he committed and corrupt practice
• . : and contended· that the election petition is not bona fide and has
· been filed only to harass him. . c
. • During the trial the appellant's case was that he sent the five
waist coats as gifts through Tsarise, P.W. 14 in September 1982 and
that he did not personally distribute them after the election process
had started in order to induce the recipients to cast their votes in
. , his favour. The dispute was thus confined to the date of distribution p
of the waist coats, namely, whether they · were given in September
· · 1982 or on 27-10-1982, as to whether the appellant gave thefu per·
sonally or sent them through P. W. 14. and as. to whether they were
given to induce the recipients to cast · their votes in favour of the
appellant or only to keep up the appellant's promise made in
August 1982 to send some gifts in return for the gift made to him .•'.
E
earlier as per cusiom. ·

_ · The · respondent examined Lisechem, P. W, II, Lithrongse,
~·.~·· P.W. 12, Murimong P.W. 13, B: Tsarise; P.W. 14 and· Tselongse,
· P. W. ·15 for proving this item of corrupt practice. On the side of the F
• :'appellant there is the evidence of the appellant R.W. I,• Chupongse,
R.W. 3, Krishna Kumar, R.W. 4 and Yanstsasi, R.W, 5 about this
• 'charge.'
•
.On a consideration of the oral and &lcumentary evidence the
learned Judge of the High Court found that this item of charge · i G
of comipt practice is proved beyond reasonable doubt and he-
-.\..,,. accordingly allowed the election petition and set aside the appellant's
election as stated above. However, the learned Judge did not rule
out rthat the appellant had distributed red waist coats iii September
'! 1982'as'ob.erved by him in r~rasraph 15 9f his judgment which will
be extracted in due course, · · H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 3 s.c.R. -' '
A , The appellant, R.W. I has denied in his evidence that he went
to Lirise village on 27-10-1982 or presented the waist coats perso-
~ally. He has stated that he visited that village two or three days
after l 5-8-19S2 at the request of the Head Gaon Burah, R.W. 3,
and was welcomed by the Gaon Burahs and others where P.W. 14,
then a leading worker and member of the NNDP was also present
B
and was taken to the house of R.W. 3 and presented with a shawl
as per the custom of the Nagas and that as he had gone there
urgently and had not taken anything to make a gift by way of
retur.n as per the custom, he promised to send some gifts later and
he thereafter ordered under Ex. C dated 2-9-1982 for the
c making of five red waist coats through Krishna Kumar, R.W. 4 and
got them from him on 10-9-1982 and sent them in the same month
through P.W. 14 being distributed to the Gaon Burahs of Lirise
villaoe. He has stated that he filed the nomination paper on
13-10-1982 and that P.W. 14 who was Area Council Member joined
the Congress ([) party in the midst of the election and supported the
., D Co.ngress (!)candidate. Krishna Kumar, R.W. 4, the proprietor of
a tailoring firm at Kohima has corroborated the evidence of R. W. 1
about placing of the order Ex. C on 2-9-1982 and taking delivery of
the waist coats on 10-9-198 2. He has stated that Ex. C written by
'the appellant is signed by him and that as the appellant was a
known person he delivered the waist coats though Ex. C was not
E surrendered to him on 10-9-1982. The Head GaonBurah, R.W. 3
has corroborated the evidence of R. W. 1 that he met the appellant
at Longkhim in August 1982 and requested him to visit Lirise village
and that he accordingly came to Lirise village and was received in the
Mong Mong month and presented with a cloth. and that the appel-

F
lant regretted that he had not brought anything to be presented by
way of return and promised to send·-waist coats later. He has further .
stated that P.W. 14 subsequently told him that the waist coats had
arrived and be thereupon asked him to distribute them and give one
of them to him also and they were given to him and other Gaon
Burahs. Yanstasi, R.W. 5 has corroborated the evidence of R.W. 3
G about the appellant's visit, saying that two months before the elec-
tion held in November 1982 he had gone to Lirise to meet the
appellant, and that the appellant was' received by the villagers and
taken to the Head Gaon Burah's house and presented with a sangtam
cloth and that tile appellant regretted that he had not brought any
present to be given by him and assured that he would send waist
II coats later. R, W, ~ wai Head GaoQ B~rah and he becarn~ Special
N. HORANGSE v. ·M. TSUBONGSE (Varadarajan, J.) 341
A
DB. at Seotsing from 15-9-1983. He has denied that he had worked
for the appellant in the elections held in 1977 and 1982, in both of
which he had been declared duly elect.ed. R,W, 3 has not been cross-
examined seriously a~out the month of the appellant's visit to Lirise
village, namely, Mong Mong month, which according to the evidence
of R.W.5 is September in which the Mong Mong festival is celebrated B
by the Nagas. Ex. C was not filed in the court at the earliest stage.
R.W.1 has stated in his evidence that his wife came across it after he'
had filed his written statement in the election pteition and gave it to
him for being produced during the trial. Maybe, no reliance could
be placed on Ex.C to find out when the waist . coats were ordered
to be made and about when they were actually delivered by R.W.4 c
to the appellant. P.W.14 has not been cross-examined regarding the
month in which he left the NNDP and joined Congress (!) party,
which according to his evidence, was in August 1982._ Similarly R.W.
\ h.S not been cross-examined about when.P.W.14 left the.NNDP
and joined the Congress (Ji party, which according to his evidence,
was in the midst of the election in which he filed the nomination D
paper on 1310 1982. It is not improbable that the appellant had
sent the waist coats through P.W.14 who was a prominent member
of the NNDP and the Area Council member at that time for being
·distributed to the Gaon Burahs by way of return of the present of
the shawl made to him during his earlier visit as per the custom E
amongst Nagas to exchange gifts during the visit of important
rersons like M.L.As. and others. The appellant was the Deputy
Speaker of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly at that time. The said
custom amongst the Nagas is spoken to even by respondent P.W.l
who has stated in his evidence that normally villagers also would
present giflS to visiting M.L.As. and the visiting M.L.As. also would ,F
make presents to the villagers as per the custom of the Nagas. W~
find no stisfactory ·reason for rejecting the evidence of R.Ws. I to
5. As a matter of fact, even the learned counsel for the respondent
in this appeal before the trial court does not appear to have seriously
chailenged. the acceptahility of the evidence of these witnesses in
• the course of his argumen'ts before the learned Judge. The learned
·Judge has stated in his ju<lgment in regard to this matter thus: "It
has been contended that even if it is assumed that the respondent
· ·(appellant in this appeal) had taken delivery of five red waist coats
on 10-9 -1982 as reflected in Ex. C, this would not rule out the
distribution in Octobor 1982. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. (respondent in this appeal) t!iat ~ven if
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.R.

'A distribution of some waist coats had taken place in September 1982
as deposed by R.Ws. 4 and 5, the same is not enough to discard
the allegation of distribution of other waist coats in October 1982.
This submission is apparently right inasmuch as because some
persons had been given in September 1982 in pursuance of assura·
nce made in August 1982. it would not by itself rule out the giving
'B of such· gifts in October, more so when the price of one waist coat
seems to be around Rs. I00"

The sum of Rs. 100 per piece mentioned by R.W.1 in his
evidence is the price of each of the blankets which he had distributed 'f·.
to some persons in the village in J 981 and not of each of the
'C
waist coats given in 1982. It is not the case of any of the parties
that waist coats were presented by or at the instance of the
appellant once in September 1982 and again to the same Gaons
Borah in October I 982. Nor is it probable that only waist coat
would have been presented on both the occasions to the same
I; D individuals Even ifthe evidence of R.Ws. I to 5 is considered to
be unsatisfactory to prove that the red waist coats were presented
only in September 1982 and not in October 1982, that does not
mean that the respondent's case that the red waist coats were given
to P. Ws. II, 12 and I 3 on 27. I0.1982 to induce them to cast
their votes in favour of the appellant stands proved. The respondent
·E has to prove his case which is disputed by the appellant indepen-
dently of the fact whether the appellant has proved bis defence
or not,

Now we. proceed to consider the evidence of P,Ws. II to 15,
Lisechem, P.W.11, a (Jaon Burah of Lirise village mentioned the
date of the appellant's visit first as 27.9.1982 and then corrected it
as 27.10.1982 and again stated that be does not remember the month
or dale of receipt of the waist coat by him from the appellant 11nd
be has added that it was after the date of the election. He has stated
that the appellant came to his house on 27.10.1982 and gave him a
red waist coat and asked him to cast his vote in his favour and not
to inform others about the presentation of the waist coat and that
soon after the appellant left his house, P.Ws. 14 and 15 came to bis
house and asked him about what bad been given to him by the
appellant and he thereupon showed that waist coat to them and told +
them that it was given to him .
•
ll Lithrongse' r.w.12, another Gaon 13urall of Liri5e villa~e llas
N. HPRANGSE v. M. TSUBONGSE (Varadarajan, J.) 349

stated that the appellant came to his house at 4.00 p.m. on A
27. l 0.1982 and pmented a red waist coat to him and asked him to
cast his vote in his favour and that soon after the appellant left his
house, P.Ws. 14 and 15 came there and asked him as to what was
given to him and .he thereupon told them that the appellant gave
him a waist coat and they asked him to remember it and not to
deny it later. He is unable to deny that appelb nt visited the village
in August or,September 1982 or to say whether it was in 1981 when
admittedly he ·received a blanket from the appellant on a prior
occasion when the appellant was the Deputy Speaker of the Legis-
lative Assembly. It is seen from his evidence that P. W. 15 belongs to
the Congress (I) party and that P.W. 14 was previously in the NNDP c
and had subsequently joined the Congress (I) party.,

Muri Mong, P .W. t 3 .of Li.rise vitiage has stated in his evidence
that the appellant came to his village after 4.00 p.m. on 27.10. 1982
and presented a red waist coat to him and a5ked him to cast his vote
in his favour and that a minute after the appellant left his house, D
P.Ws. 14 and 15 came there. and asked' him if a waist coat was
presented to him by the appellant. He has denied that P.W. 14 gave
the waist coat to him in the first party of September !982 and that
the appellant did not visit his village or present the waist coat on
27.10.1982. Ho has stated that he is an old man and that he does
not remember months and dates .. ·

Tsariso, P.W. 14 who was admittedly in the NNDP and a
Rtipporter.of that party previously claims to have joined the Cong•
ress {l) party in Ausust 1982. He has stated in his evidence that thu
11ppellant came to Lirise village on 27.10.1982 and visited the houses
pf P.W, II, Lithsahha and P.Ws. 12 and 13 in that order at about
4.00 p.m. and that he and P.W.15 went to those houses within a few F
minutes after the appellant's ·departure from there and those
persons individually told them that the appellant gave them a waist
coat and aS!Ced them to cast their votes In his favour. He has admit·
ted that when·he visited the house of P.Ws. II to 13 and Lithsaba
•
he asked them to remember the date and the time and not to deny
G
it later .. He has denied that the appe11ant sent the red waist coats
through him in the early part of September 1982 for distribution
11mongst Gaon Burahs . of Lirise viilage. · ·

Tsalongse, P.W. 15 does not remember the date of the appel- H
}ant's visit to Liri~~ vil!age. He hP~'.sl?ted in his evi(le11>e th~t the
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) 3 S.C.R.

appellant came t6 the village in the election period and asked the
·people to cast their votes in his favour. He claims to have gone to
the house of P.W. 14 and to have seen from there the appellant
visiting the houses of P.W. 11. Lithsaba and P.Ws. 12 and 13 one
aft~r, the other. He has stated that he and P. W. 14 went to those
B; house~ soon after the appellant left the places and they individually
told ,them that the appellant gave red waist coats and asked them to
cast. their votes in his favour. He has denied that the appellant
neither visited Lirise village nor presented waist coat on 27.10.1982.

It. is significant to note that though in the election petition
it is clearly alleged that the appellant gave red waist coats to P.Ws.
11 to 13 and Lithsabha at 4.00 p.m. on 27. l 0. 1982 for inducing them
to cast their votes in his favour in the presence of P.Ws. 14 and 15
and they witnessed the offer and reported the matter subsequently to
th'e respondent P.Ws. 14 and 15 do not claim in their evidence
D personal knowledge about the offer presentation of t'1e waist coats
by the appellant to these four persons and about the inducement of
the appellant to cast their votes in his favour. Admittedly, P. W. 14
had asked P.Ws. II, 12 and 13 to remember the date and time of
the appellant's visit to their houses where he claims to have gone
alongwith P.W. 15 soon after the departure of the appellant from
E each of those places. It is clear that these three witnesses. P.Ws. 11
to 13 have mentioned the date and month of the appellant's visit
only on the basis of what P.W. 14 told them to remember .. PW. 14,
who was a staunch worker of the NNDP and bad switched over to
the Congress (T) party to which P.W. 15 belongs, some time before·
the election. and P.W. 15 are the interesied witnesses. P.W. 15 bas
F stated in his evidence that the appellant appealed to the people •
of the village to cast their votes in his favour and that he went to th7
houses of P.Ws. 11 to 13 in Lirise village only thereafter. If that is
so, if is n()t likely that the appellant, then the Deputy Speaker would·
have: carried the gunny or hessian bag containing the waist coats·
himself without being accompanied even by a single worker or'
G
~_) sympathiser of· the NNDP when he is stated to have visited" those, ·
four houses for presenting the waist coats and inducing the 'reci:·
pients to cast their votes in his favour. The evidence of P.Ws. 11
to 13 that P.Ws. 14 and 15 came to their houses within minutes
after the appellant left the place and asked them about what had
H. been•given to them by the appellant and that when they told them
that red waist coats have b~en ~iv~p to them with a request tQ:
\,
k ltottANGSll v, M. TSUBONOSE (Varadara}an, J) ~sl

favour him with their votes, they asked them to remember the date A
and time and not to deny the matter later-P. W. 14 has stated so
in bis evidence-is artificial and unreliable. We are, therefore, not
impressed with the evidence of P.Ws .. l l to-15 about the daie of the
appellant's visit to Liris~ village and the presentation of the red
waist coats to P.Ws. 1lto13 and others. On the evidence of.R.Ws.
B
I to 5, which we accept, we find that the appellant got the waist
coats distributed through P,.Ws. 14 who was then a staunch worker
of the NNDP in September l 982 long before the election process
had started as per the custom of Nagas to make gifts in return for
the gifts received by dignitaries. The evidence let in by the respon-
dent to prove this item of alleged corrupt practice on the part of the c
appellant is wholly insufficient and unacceptable to. prove .th.e. charge
satisfactorily. We are, therefore, unable to uphold. the judgment of
the learned Judge, setting aside the appellant's election on- the ground
oE the alleged corrupt practice. We accordingly allow the appeal
with costs in both the courts and set aside the judgment of the
learned Judge. D

S.R. Appeal allowed.