Election corrupt practice proof: bribery needs strict inducement, while false handbills and religious appeals can void an election.

Bribery under election law requires strict proof of the prohibited inducement and purpose; mere financial help or provision of a car, without evidence that it was meant to prevent withdrawal from the contest, is insufficient. On the other hand, circulation of handbills before polling containing untrue imputations about a rival candidate, coupled with an appeal to voters on religious lines, constitutes corrupt practice where the publisher did not believe the statements to be true. The election was therefore liable to be set aside on the proved grounds of false statements and appeal to religion, while the bribery allegation failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the allegation of bribery under the election law was proved; (ii) whether the printed handbills and related propaganda amounted to corrupt practices, including appeal to religion and publication of false statements about the rival candidate.

Issue (i): Whether the allegation of bribery under the election law was proved.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the alleged financial help and car supplied to the other candidate were given with the essential inducement that he should remain in the field and not withdraw. Mere assistance, without proof of the prohibited object, was insufficient to constitute bribery as a corrupt practice.

Conclusion: The bribery charge was not proved and was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the printed handbills and related propaganda amounted to corrupt practices, including appeal to religion and publication of false statements about the rival candidate.

Analysis: The handbills were found to have existed and to have been circulated before polling. Their contents contained untrue imputations about the rival candidate, which the appellant did not believe to be true, and they also appealed to Muslim voters on religious lines by contrasting the candidates' religious character and conduct. The Court did not accept the wider case of undue influence based on speculative fears, but it accepted the corrupt practices founded on false statements and appeal to religion.

Conclusion: The corrupt practices under the relevant provisions relating to false statements and appeal to religion were proved against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The election of the appellant was rightly set aside, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an election petition, a returned candidate's election is liable to be voided where the evidence proves circulation of handbills containing false statements about an opponent and an appeal to religion, but bribery is not made out unless the prohibited inducement and purpose are strictly established.

---