Manoj Kumar Agrawal vs Smt. Archana Chitnis

Hon''ble Mr. R.C. Mishra, J.—In this petition, election of the returned candidate, viz. the respondent to the M.P. Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 180 Burhanpur (for short "the Constituency") has been called in question on the ground mentioned in Section 100 (1) (b) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The reliefs claimed therein are as follows :-

(i) declaration that election of the respondent is void.

(ii) direction for prosecution of the respondent and other persons found guilty of the corrupt practices.

(iii) direction to hold the election afresh.

The following calendar of events for the said election was notified on 31-10-2008:--

(a) Last date for filing nominations

07-11-2008

(b) Date of scrutiny of nominations

08-11-2008

(c) Last date for withdrawal of nominations

10-11-2008

(d) Date of polling

27-11-2008

(e) Date of counting/declaration of result

08-12-2008

As many as 14 candidates including the petitioner and the respondent contested the election. The petitioner was in the fray as an authorised candidate of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) whereas the respondent was fielded as the official candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party, the then Ruling Party in the State. During the election campaign of the respondent, poster in question (Exh. P-3), which contained appeal to the electorate to vote for her was distributed. As indicated therein, in all 1000 such posters were published by Mukesh Dewada, a party worker, with consent of the respondent and the charges incurred in publication thereof were also included in the accounts of expenditure furnished to the District Election Officer. In the final result-sheet prepared in Form 20 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the votes secured by the independent candidates as well as the candidates representing various political parties were reflected as under:--

S.No.

Name of candidate

Party Affiliation

Number of votes secured

(1)

Archana Didi

BJP

85362

(2)

Girdhari Lal Kumawat

RJD

641

(3)

Nafees Mansha Khan

SP

1573

(4)

Manoj Kumar Agrawal

BSP

5845

(5)

Sharif Rajgir

CPI

634

(6)

Hameed Kazi

NCP

52508

(7)

Isamuddin Leader Sujauddin

SAP

521

(8)

Dharmraj Devchand Mahajan

BJSH

661

(9)

Mukund Sanyas

RPI (A)

553

(10)

Shakeel Khan Usman Khan

LJP

344

(11)

Kailash Parik

IND

867

(12)

Dinesh Sudras

IND

323

(13)

Premchand Baliram Nagraj

IND

624

(14)

Mohan Patil Baliram Patil

IND

3037

The respondent was declared elected as she had obtained the majority of votes.

As per the petitioner, the constituency had 2,04,522 registered voters. Of these, there were approximately 1,20,000 Hindu voters. Various temples including temple of Lal Deval situated at the bank of river Tapti in the city of Burhanpur were depicted in the poster distributed by the respondent in furtherance of her election. Use of such a poster showing temple, which is a religious symbol of the Hindus in general in the election campaign against the backdrop of recent communal disturbances, amounted to corrupt practices as contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Act.

While denying the allegation, the respondent has submitted that it is an appeal in the name of religion that constitutes a corrupt practice whereas the poster did not contain any appeal to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of religion and further that there is not even an iota of communal slant in the depiction of the temple. According to her,--

(a) the famous structure of "Lal Deval" located at the bank of river Tapti is neither any religious symbol reflecting the identity of Burhanpur nor has been notified as such by the Department of Religious Trust and Endowments (Government of M.P.).

(b) the poster related to river Tapti and not to any temple or monument situated on its bank and the contents thereof only reflected her emotional attachment and dreams about the development of Burhanpur with the river at its fulcrum as well as her plans to further implementation of mega recharge scheme for the benefit of the local farmers.

(c) the poster only reflected the actual scenario at the bank of river Tapti, which is sign of identification of Burhanpur, and depiction of certain structures situated at its bank, was only incidental and not intentional.

(d) had there been any intention of project the temples as the religious symbols or use them for appeal to vote in her favour, the election symbol and her photograph would not have covered the poster so vitally.

(e) copies of the post were distributed throughout the constituency during the election.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed. The corresponding answer is noted against each one of them :--

No.

Issues

Finding

(1)

Whether the poster in question (Annexure P-3) depicts a religious symbol within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Act ?

Or

Whether the poster reflected the actual site of the bank of river Tapti in Burhanpur, if so, the effect ?

No

Yes

(2)

Whether by publishing and distributing the poster, the respondent made an appeal to vote on the ground of her religion for the furtherance of her prospects of the election or for prejudicially affecting the election of any other candidate in the fray ?

No

(3)

Whether the respondent is guilty of corrupt practices u/s 123 (3) of the Act ?

No

(4)

Whether the election of the respondent to M.P. Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 180, Burhanpur is liable to be declared as void under sub-section (1) (b) of Section 100 of the Act ?

No

(5)

Relief and costs.

Petition dismissed with cost.

Reasons for the findings :

Issue No. 1:

Petitioner Manoj Kumar (P.W. 1) has asserted that the respondent, by way of poster (Exh. P-3), had made appeal to secure votes with the aid of temple, which is a religious symbol of the Hindus. According to him, in the poster, the temples situated at the bank of river Tapti in Burhanpur including Lal Deval Temple were purposely depicted. However, he has candidly admitted that-

(a) If the photograph of the respondent and picture of "Lotus" flower, the election symbol of Bhartiya Janta Party, are removed from the poster, it would only show the actual site of the bank of river Tapti.

(b) Scene depicted in the poster is that of Rajghat, a tourist place situated at the bank of river Tapti, which is revered equally by Hindus and Muslims.

(c) The poster does not contain appeal on the ground of religion or God.

(d) It is the popular belief that when the water of Tapti touches the top of "Lal Deval" temple, there is every likelihood that city of Surat (Gujarat), which is also located at the bank of the same river, will be flooded with its water.

Similar admissions have been made by Waseem Khan (P.W. 3), an elector and a practicing Advocate, in his cross-examination. He further acknowledged that the poster did not hurt any religious faith. He was not in a position to answer the question as to whether after seeing the poster, the Muslim voters had voted against the Hindu candidates.

Even after claiming in the cross-examination, that an idol of Lord Shiva is consecrated in the Lal Deval temple, petitioner Manoj Kumar has not preferred to examine any worshipper of the deity. Waseem Khan (P.W. 3) also pleaded complete ignorance of the fact that Lal Deval is used for measuring water level of river Tapti.

As deposed by the respondent (D.W. 6), to her knowledge, regular worshipping is not being performed in any of the temples shown in the poster whereas the Lal Deval temple is in fact, used for assessing the water level to anticipate any danger of flood in the city of Surat. According to her, in the area marked as "C", there is a mosque in dilapidated condition and in the area marked as "D" in the poster, another mosque known as "Kali Masjid" is situated and both the mosques are used by Muslims for offering prayers and Namaz. Her testimony drew ample support from the statements of other witnesses namely Siraj Ahmad Ansari (D.W. 1). a weaver by occupation, Sunil Kharche (D.W. 2), a sand contractor, Mohanlal (D.W. 3), an employee of liquor contractor, Chetan Das (D.W. 4), a farmer and Purushottam (D.W. 5), a washerman. Among these witnesses, who are residents of Burhanpur only, Purushottam (D.W. 5) came forward to state that idols in all the temples shown in the posters are in broken condition and, therefore, are not worshipped. Chetan Das (D.W. 4) also admitted that he had not visited any temple for worshipping. Mohanlal (D.W. 3) was emphatic in saying that in the Lal Deval temple also, the idol is in broken condition.

Sunil (D.W. 2), while admitting that in some of the temples located at Rajghat, the idols are regularly worshipped, has also informed that ancient temple of Saturn is situated there only. According to him, the Saturn temple, not shown in the poster, is considered to be the most revered place of worship for the Hindus simply because in the Hindu mythology, Goddess Tapti is the sister of Lord Saturn. Significance of Saturn temple was also highlighted by Mohan Lal (D.W. 3) and Purushottam (D.W. 5) by deposing that the idol installed therein is rare inasmuch as on its other side, idol of Lord Hanuman is carved.

Although, petitioner Manoj Kumar feigned ignorance of the peculiarity of the idol yet, he came forward to admit that in the Saturn Temple, a Shivlinga and an idol of Lord Ganesha are also worshipped. Purushottam (D.W. 5) substantiated the fact stated by Sunil (D.W. 2) that view of Rajghat as depicted in the poster appears to have been photographed from the Saturn Temple only. While admitting existence of old Saturn Temple at Rajghat; Siraj Ahmad Ansari (D.W. 1) asserted that at the place shown in the poster below the word "Pur", a Mazar is situated where the followers of Islam used to go to offer Fatiha (prayer for the dead). He further asserted that in the poster, minarates in the Kali Masjid located in Zainabad are also visible.

Use of religion, caste, race, community or language for furtherance of the prospects of the election of the candidate is prohibited under sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Act. It reads as under :--

Section 123. Major Corrupt practices.--

(1) ***

(1) ***

(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate :

Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purposes of this clause.

Accordingly, appeal to religious symbol is a corrupt practice as contemplated by the sub-section. However, what would be an appeal to religious symbol is a vexed question. The case law on the subject may be tabulated as under:-

Precedent

The view taken

Mohansingh Vs. Bhanwarlal, AIR 1964 MP 137 (DB)

Appeal in the name of cow or Nandadeep is not an appeal to any religious symbol because (i) Deep is not any religious symbol, (ii) it does not stand for, or represent, any particular God or Goddess, and (iii) in common parlance, Nanda-Deep does not represent the symbol of any deity, Mata or, Goddess and it requires some etymological research to know that ''Nanda'' also means ''Durga'' and Nanda-Deep is the symbol of Durga.

Jagdev Singh Sidhanti Vs. Pratap Singh Daulta, AIR 1965 SC 183

Word ''Om'' used on a flat is not a religious symbol.

Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel Vs. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji, AIR 1965 SC 669

Describing election symbol as ''Dhruva Star'' with its attributes in election pamphlets is not a corrupt practice as Dhruva Star is not a religious symbol.

Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299

Cow and Calf is not a religious symbol.

Mullapudi Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Vedula Suryanarayana, AIR 1994 SC 1627

Poster of leader of party to which successful candidate belonged, in attire of Lord Krishna blowing ''Shanku (conch) and quoting words of Bhagwadgita addressed by Krishna to Arjuna that his incarnation would be born upon the earth to restore dharma, is a religious symbol.

The proviso appended to the sub-section (3) (ibid), by the Act No. 40 of 1975 is to the effect that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol for the purpose of this clause. Even prior to that, the Supreme Court in Ramanbhai''s case (supra), while deciding whether ''Star'' that was allotted to Swatantra Party by the Election Commission was a religious symbol, had the occasion to lay down the guideline in the following terms :--

If the voters are told that they should cast their vote for a particular candidate whose election symbol is associated with a particular religion just as the Cross is with Christianity, that will be using a religious symbol for obtaining votes. But where, as in the case of the Hindu religion, it is not possible to associate a particular symbol with religion, the use of a symbol even when it is associated with some deity, cannot, without something more, be regarded as a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Act. For instance, a particulate object or a plant, a bird or an animal associated with a deity is used in such a way as to show that votes are being solicited in the name of that deity or as would indicate that the displeasure of that deity would be incurred if a voter does not react favourably to that appeal, it may be possible to say that this amounts to making an appeal in the name of religion. But the symbol standing by itself cannot be regarded as an appeal in the name of religion.

Reverting to the evidence as marshalled above, the undermentioned conclusions may safely be drawn :-

(i) If the photograph of the respondent and picture of "Lotus" flower, the election symbol of Bhartiya Janta Party, are removed from the poster (Exh. P-3), it would only present a panoramic view of Rajghat situated on the bank of river Tapti, its bed and the headland on the opposite bank.

(ii) Rajghat also has structures including Lal Deval, which is used for assessing the water level to anticipate the danger of flood in the city of Surat (Gujarat).

(iii) All the temples shown in the poster contain broken or abandoned idols considered as unworthy of worship.

(iv) The most revered temple situated at the bank of river Tapti is the temple of Saturn who, according to Hindu Mythology, is her brother but this temple was not depicted in the poster.

(v) Structures visible in the poster include a dilapidated Mosque at Rajghat and Kali Masjid located on the other side of the river.

A charge of corrupt practice is substantially akin to a criminal charge. As such, the contention that by not denying specifically the petitioner''s pleading regarding depiction of temples including Lal Deval temple in the poster, the respondent has admitted that it is a religious symbol is apparently misconceived. In this regard, the following illuminating observations made by R.S. Sarkaria, J. in Ch. Razik Ram Vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan and Others, , may usefully be quoted :-

The commission of a corrupt practice entails serious penal consequences. It not only vitiates the election of the candidate concerned but also disqualifies him from taking part in elections for a considerably long time. Thus, the trial of an election petition being in the nature of an accusation, bearing the indelible stamp of quasi-criminal action, the standard of proof is the same as in a criminal trial. Just as in a criminal case, so in an election petition, the respondent against whom the charge of corrupt practice is levelled, is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. A grave and heavy onus therefore, rests on the accuser to establish each and every ingredient of the charge by clear, unequivocal and unimpeachable evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that there is no difference between the general rules of evidence in civil and criminal cases, and the definition of "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act does not draw a distinction between civil and criminal cases. Nor does this definition insist on perfect proof because absolute certainty amounting to demonstration is rarely to be had in the affairs of life. Nevertheless, the standard of measuring proof prescribed by the definition, is that of a person of prudence and practical good sense. ''Proof means the effect of the evidence adduced in the case. Judged by the standard of prudent man, in the light of the nature of onus cast by law, the probative effect of evidence in civil and criminal proceedings is markedly different. The same evidence which may be sufficient to regard a fact as proved in a civil suit, may be considered insufficient for a conviction in a criminal action. While in the former, a mere preponderance of probability may constitute an adequate basis of decision, in the latter a far higher degree of assurance and judicial certitude is requisite for a conviction.

In the face of the abovementioned fact-findings and the well-settled position of law on the subject, it is difficult to hold that the poster (Exh. P-3) depicts any religious symbol within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of Act as it only reflects panoramic view of river Tapti in Burhanpur. The alternative issues under Serial No. (1) above, are answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2 :

City of Burhanpur was rocked by communal riots on 9th and 10th of October, 2008 whereas Gazette Notification for the election was published on 31-10-2008. As many as 9 persons lost their lives during the riots. An inquiry into the riots was ordered by the M.P. State Human Rights Commission. Sushovan Banerjee (P.W. 2), Inspector General of Police, had conducted the inquiry and submitted his report (Exh. P-5) before the Commission. These facts are not in dispute.

Manoj Kumar (P.W. 1), the petitioner, has alleged that the respondent committed corrupt practice by making appeal to electors to vote for her through the medium of poster (Exh. P-3) representing temples against the backdrop of recent communal riots. According to him, publication and distribution of the poster in the post-riot period resulted in polarization of the electorate on communal basis and, accordingly, Muslims voted for Hameed Qazi whereas non-Muslims cast their votes in favour of the respondent. His witness Waseem Khan (P.W. 3), while substantiating the allegation, has deposed that the riots had disturbed the communal harmony and spirit of brotherhood.

Manoj Kumar, in his testimony, he also made reference to Paragraph 5 of the report (Exh. P-5) authored by Sushovan Banerjee (P.W. 2) indicating that on 10th October, 2008, the respondent had visited Gandhi Ghowk where Kailash Parik, a local BJP leader, was sitting on Dharna (picketing) along with his supporters and during her brief stay there, had also talked to the protesters. He further stressed that the riots continued even after respondent''s short meeting with Kailash Parik.

Highlighting these background circumstances, the petitioner has argued that publication and circulation of the poster (Exh. P-3) was not aimed at mere depiction of the temples at Rajghat but was intended to generate appeal to the voters to vote for the respondent on the ground of her-religion. To fortify the argument, implicit reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in P.C. Thomas Vs. P.M. Ismail and Others, . The ratio laid down in Kultar Singh Vs. Mukhtiar Singh, , that appeal to voters on ground of religion can be a corrupt practice even though rival candidates belong to same religion, has also been cited. Inviting attention to the observations made by the Apex Court in Dr. Das Rao Deshmukh Vs. Kamal Kishore Nanasaheb Kadam and others, , the petitioner has further submitted that in the context in which the poster was published, it was likely to rouse passion in minds of voters on communal basis.

Denying the charge, the respondent Archana Chitnis (D.W. 6) has explained that she had published the poster to highlight the physical and geographical situation of Rajghat in view of the fact that during the preceding years, she had remained involved in various developmental projects including mega artificial recharge scheme for bulk augmentation by harnessing the surplus run-off of Tapti river during the monsoon period. For this, reference has been made to (a) recommendations of Central Ground Water Board, Bhopal (Exh. D-1), (b) related correspondence (Exhs. D-2 to D-22) and (c) extracts of relevant proceedings of Vidhan Sabha (Exh. D-23). According to her, river Tapti is the lifeline of entire area of Burhanpur and Rajghat, being the main bank of the river, is the identity of Burhanpur.

While admitting that on 10th of October, 2008, she had visited Gandhi Chowk where, against the backdrop of communal riots between Hindus and Muslims, Dharna (picketing) by certain supporters of BJP was organised, the respondent stated that during her stay for about two minutes, she had only consoled them. Nothing could be elicited in her cross-examination so as to suggest that she had, in any way, provoked the supporters of BJP to continue with the Dharna.

Further, as admitted by Sushovan Banerjee (P.W. 2), his report (Exh. P-5) did not disclose any role of the respondent, whether direct of indirect, in the riots. The report also revealed that-

(a) respective roles of sitting M.P. namely Nandkumar Singh Chouhan representing BJP and the sitting MLA of Burhanpur Constituency namely Hameed Qazi, who subsequently contested the election as official candidate of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), were shrouded with doubt and were instrumental in triggering off the communal riots.

(b) the respondent had visited Gandhi Chowk in the capacity of sitting MLA from Nepanagar Constituency.

As reflected in the table in Para 3 (above), Kailash Parik, referred to as the local BJP leader, who tarried on picketing at the Gandhi Chowk, also contested the election as an independent candidate and had secured 867 votes.

In Kultar Singh''s case (supra), the Constitution Bench explained the test to be applied to decide as to whether a particular appeal made by a candidate falls within the mischief of Section 123 (3) of the Act in the following terms :--

(i) The Courts should not be astute to read into the words used in the appeal anything more than can be attributed to them on its fair and reasonable construction.

(ii) The document in question must be read as a whole and its purport and effect determined in a fair, objective and reasonable manner.

Further in P. C. Thomas''s case (supra), it'' was laid down that in deciding as to whether offending materials amounted to/constituted an appeal on the ground of religion, the test to be applied is that of a common man''s understanding and the effect of the documents on the mind and feelings of an ordinary average voter. In that case, calendar (Exh. P-2) containing the photograph of the appellant with the Holy Pope, taken on the occasion of the beatification ceremony of Mother Teresa was circulated along with the offending notice (Exh. P-1) purportedly authored and published in the name of John. K. a well known leader of Catholic community, that contained the following appeal :--

P.C. Thomas, who participated as the official representative of the Central Government at the function beatifying and conferring sainthood to Mother Teresa who had flown away to God''s Court like the piece of white cloud of purity and declared before the whole world, by kissing the hand of the Holy Father, the love and affection of 100 crore Indians, stands as social worker whom our community can always be proud of, it was the selfishness and personal interest of certain people, which sent him to the BJP Front. But there too he stands as a witness of Christ like the old Joseph who was elevated as king by the aliens.

I request you to give P.C. Thomas, who is the representative of the Christians, following the footsteps of Lord Jesus who stepped into this world to preach the Gospel to the poor, to console the sad at heart to free the shackled, to give sight to the blind and to liberate the oppressed and who follows the commandment of the Holy Church, your ever strong prayer support to enable that son to continue as Jesus'' witness in Delhi.

It was on these facts that the Court observed that the Calendar (Exh. P-2) does not per se fall within the mischief of Section 123 (3) of the Act but taken along with the notice (Exh. P-1) does serve as a statement to strengthen the appeal in the notice. Accordingly, the Apex Court agreed with the finding of the High Court that the appellant viz., P.C. Thomas was guilty of corrupt practice by making appeal to electors to vote on the ground of religion.

However, facts of the instant case are apparently distinguishable inasmuch as Waseem Khan (P.W. 3), the sole witness examined by the petitioner, has admitted that his religious feelings remained unaffected even after seeing the poster (Exh. P-3) and also (hat all the Muslim voters had not voted against the respondent. Moreover, Sheikh Rahmat (D.W. 7), a Muslim voter called by the respondent, categorically admitted that the poster, which was affixed in Azadnagar wherein he resides, did not in any way, hurt the feelings of Muslim voters and none of the other witnesses including Siraj Ahmad Ansari (D.W. 1) was cross-examined on this point.

As pointed out already, out of 14 candidates, five were Muslims and each one of them was able to obtain certain voles and petitioner Manoj Kumar (sic) secured third position in the election. This trend of votes, as reflected in the table in Para 3 (above), suggesting that all the Muslim voles were not east in favour of Muslim candidates, clearly ruled the possibility of a communal polarisation of the electorate.

Further, no presumption, u/s 81 of the Indian evidence Act, is attached to genuineness of the newspaper reports (Exhs. P-11 to P-13) referred to by the petitioner ( Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, referred to).

This apart, there is nothing on record to suggest that before the date of polling, i.e., 27-11-2008. petitioner Manoj Kumar had made any complaint to the Appropriate Authority regarding use of the poster by the respondent in her election campaign. Copy of the complaint (Exh. P-7) said to have been made by the petitioner on 1-12-2008 to the Returning Officer/District Election Officer does not contain any acknowledgment as to receipt thereof and none of the postal receipts (Exh. P-8 and Exh. P-9) relates to this complaint. The affidavit (copy of which is placed on record as Exh. P-10) also appears to have been sworn in on 5-12-2003. Obviously, the aforesaid complaint and the affidavit were prepared during the period intervening the polling and declaration of the result.

The decision in Das Rao Deshmntkh''s ease (supra), is not of much relevance as in that case, the poster displayed with permission of returned candidate contained appeal to vote for him for purpose of "leaching a lesson to Muslims" and therefore, he was held guilty of the corrupt practice u/s 123 (3) (3-A) of the Act. As observed by the Apex Court, the appeal, in that case, was (a) potentially offensive, (b) likely to rouse passion in minds of voters on communal basis, and (c) likely to bring disharmony between two communities and offend the secular structure of the country.

The explanation furnished by the respondent for publication and distribution of the poster depicting the actual site of Rajghat comprising temples is reasonably probable. Moreover, mere reference to prophets or religions or to deities venerated in a religion or to their qualities and deeds does not necessarily amount to an appeal to the religious sentiment of the electorate. Something more has to be shown for this purpose [See : Ramanbhai ''s case (supra)].

It is the cardinal principle of election jurisprudence that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with. Though the purity of the election process has to be safeguarded and the Court shall be vigilant to see that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of law or by committing corrupt practices, the setting aside of an election involves serious consequences not only for the returned candidate and the constituency, but also for the public at large inasmuch as re-election involves an enormous load on the public-funds and administration.

Taking into consideration all these factual and legal aspects of the matter, it is also not possible to conclude that by using the poster, the respondent made an appeal to vote on the ground of her religion. The issue No. 2 is therefore, answered in the negative.

Issue Nos. 3 and 4 :

The obvious conclusion in the light of the findings of the previous issues is that the respondent has not committed any corrupt practice as envisaged by Section 123 (3) of the Act. As such, her election to M.P. Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 180 Burhanpur cannot be held to be void. The issue Nos. (3) and (4) are accordingly, decided against the petitioner.

Issue No. 5 :

For the foregoing reasons, the election petition is dismissed with cost. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the respondent. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Election Commission as well as to the speaker of the State Legislative Assembly.