IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2008 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1930 El.Pet..No. 2 of 2006 ----------------------- PETITIONER: A.NARAYANAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 51 YEARS, VALAYIL HOUSE, KAKKOOR P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.A.SAMEER SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH SRI.V.BINOY RAM SRI.ISSAC NINAN RESPONDENT: SRI.M.J.JACOB, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 61 YEARS, MUTTAPALLIL HOUSE, OLIYAPPURAM P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM. PERSONS TO WHOM NOTICES UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 99(1) OF THE R.P.ACT WERE ISSUED: 1. P.G.MANU, S/O.GOPALAN, PADMALAYAM HOUSE, MAMALASSERY P.O., RAMAMANGALAM. 2. O.N.VIJAYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, OOLAKUNNEL HOUSE, MANNATHUR P.O., THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. JINSON V.PAUL, VADAKKEMECHARIYIL HOUSE, MAMALASSERY P.O., RAMANAGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. - 2 - BY ADV. SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP (SR.) SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SMT.S.SULOCHANA SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.B.VINOD SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.E.C.BINEESH SRI.N.K.SHYJU THIS ELECTION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-4-2008, THE COURT ON 06/05/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S WITNESSES: P.W.1 - A.NARAYANAN P.W.2 - SUNIL MATHAI P.W.3 - EBY N. ELIAS P.W.4 - JOY MULLANKUZHIYIL P.W.5 - JOSHY K.PAUL P.W.6 - R.PUSHPARAJAN P.W.7 - RAJU JOHN P.W.8 - JOHN THOMAS P.W.9 - RAJESH THAMPI P.W.10 - M.T.ISSAC P.W.11 - CHANDRAMOHAN K.S. P.W.12 - BIJU P.A. P.W.13 - K.S.BABY P.W.14 - M.M.KURIAKOSE P.W.15 - JESSY PETER P.W.16 - FR.REJO NIRAPPU KANDAM P.W.17 - M.O.BABY P.W.18 - ANOOPUNNI P.W.19 - T.V.THOMAS P.W.20 - MOLLY JOSEPH P.W.21 - DOMY CHIRAPURAMU P.W.22 - P.U. RAJU P.W.23 - P.G.SHAJI P.W.24 - LALU VARGHESE P.W.25 - P.M.RAJU P.W.26 - K.PRASADA CHANDRAN PILLAI P.W.27 - DR.K.V.KURIAN P.W.28 - M.K.JOSEPH P.W.29 - M.RAJENDRAN P.W.30 - T.M.JACOB P.W.31 - T.K.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES: R.W.1 - O.N.VIJAYAN R.W.2 - JINSON V.PAUL R.W.3 - P.G.MANU R.W.4 - M.J.JACOB COURT WITNESSES (PERSONS TO WHOM NOTICES UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 99 (1) OF THE R.P.ACT WERE ISSUED): X.W.1 - T.M.JACOB X.W.2 - BABY MATHEW X.W.3 - LYJU P.VARGHESE X.W.4 - C.K.RAMACHANDRAN X.W.5 - A. NARAYANAN X.W.6 (R.W.3) - P.G.MANU X.W.7 (R.W.2) - JINSON V.PAUL X.W.8 (R.W.1) - O.N.VIJAYAN - 2 - PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LEAFLET PUBLISHED BY CONVENOR, LDF ELECTION COMMITTEE. (P.W.1) EXT.P1(i)- TRUE COPY OF THE PARAGRAPH IN EXT.P1 RELATING TO THIRUMARADY. EXT.P1(ii)- TRUE COPY OF THE SENTENCE IN BOLD LETTERS IN THE 6TH PAGE OF EXT.P1. EXT.P1-A- MODEL CONDUCT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES. (P.W.26) EXT.P2- AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY M.J.JACOB BEFORE THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER. (RW1). EXT.P3- NEWS ITEM IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 6-4-2006. (RW3) EXT.P4- NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 6-4-2006. EXT.P5- ABSTRACT STATEMENT OF ELECTION EXPENSES. EXT.P6- NEWS ITEM IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 19-4-2006. (RW4) EXT.P7- NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23-4-2006. EXT.P8- NEWS ITEM IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 9-4-2006. EXT.P9- FORM NO.8 - PW1 PROVED. EXT.P10- COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 2-1-2006. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1- PAMPHLET ISSUED BY UDF TO COMMEMORATE THE SILVER JUBILEE OF SRI.T.M.JACOB. EXT.R2- LEAFLET OF M.J.JACOB (PW1) EXT.R3- NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 20-7-2005. (PW30) EXT.R4- NEWS ITEM IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 20-7-2005. (PW30) EXT.R5- NEWS ITEM IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 20-7-2005. (PW30) EXT.R6- NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 25-7-2006. (PW30) EXT.R7- NEWS ITEM IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 25-7-2005. (PW30) EXT.R8- NEWS ITEM IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 25-7-2005. (PW30) EXT.R9- LEAFLET OF C.P.SAJU (RW1) EXT.R10- FIR (RW1) - 3 - EXT.R11- CHARGE SHEET (RW1) EXT.R12- C.C. OF FILE (RW4) EXT.X1- REPORT ISSUED BY THE LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY UNDER RULE 308(iii) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS IN THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY REGARDING THE 12TH SESSION OF THE 11TH KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. EXT.X1(a)- THE STATEMENT IN PAGE 43 OF EXT.X1 (ENGLISH VERSION IS OBTAINED). EXT.X1(b)- THE STATEMENTS IN PAGE 44 OF EXT.X1(ENGLISH VERSION IS OBTAINED). EXT.X1(c)- THE STATEMENTS IN PAGES 44 & 45 OF EXT.X1 (ENGLISH VERSION IS OBTAINED). EXT.X1(d)- THE STATEMENTS IN PAGES 46 & 47.(ENGLISH VERSION IS OBTAINED). EXT.D1- COMMUNCATION DATED ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KERALA LEGISLATURE TO THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THIS COURT WITH NO.1204/TABLE- 2/2007 LEG. EXT.D2- THE SECOND REPORT OF THE PRIVILEGES AND ETHICS COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA LEGISLATURE ON 12-3-2008. -TRUE COPY- P.S. TO JUDGE. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = E.P.No.2 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of May, 2008. O R D E R 1.This election petition is filed challenging the election of the respondent from No.79 Piravom LA Constituency to be a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly, the polling for which was held on 29-4-2006. The election petitioner is a voter of that constituency. Going by the petitioner's version, the respondent Sri.M.J.Jacob (R.W.4) secured 52903 votes as against his rival candidate Sri.T.M.Jacob (P.W.30), who secured 47753 votes. 2.The petitioner challenges the election of the respondent on the ground that a corrupt practice as defined in Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, EP2/2006 -: 2 :- hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, has been committed by the publication of Ext.P1 and that such publication has been made by the respondent's election agent (R.W.1) and by other persons with the consent of the returned candidate, the respondent or his election agent; that the statements of facts in Ext.P1 made in relation to the personal character or conduct of P.W.30, are false and that the publisher of Ext.P1 either believes them to be false or does not believe them to be true and that the said statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of P.W.30 in the election. Thus, the plea is, pithily, that the election is liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act read with Section 123(4) thereof. 3.It is stated in paragraph 2 of the election petition that the issuance of Ext.P1 is part of a systematic campaign of personal vilification of P.W.30 and that Ext.P1 notice contains false personal accusations and references, which are wholly untrue. The said notice allegedly EP2/2006 -: 3 :- contains description of P.W.30 as a cheat and as a person deceiving the people and that he is a fake. Ext.P1, according to the petitioner, also contains false allegation accusing P.W.30 of complicity in shielding an accused in a case of an attempt to murder. It is pleaded that R.W.1, the election agent of the respondent knew very well that the accusations made against P.W.30 in Ext.P1 are false. It is also alleged that R.W.1, the election agent had every reason to believe that such statements are false. Paragraph 5 of the election petition enumerates various localities at which Ext.P1 pamphlets were distributed. It also enumerates the different persons who were allegedly involved in such distribution and also persons who had either witnessed such distribution or received the notices. It is alleged that the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void by reason of the aforesaid corrupt practice committed by R.W.1, the election agent of the respondent and other agents who are allegedly involved in distribution of the notices etc., with the consent of R.W.1, the election agent. EP2/2006 -: 4 :- 4.The respondent filed written statement contending that his mode of campaign was by travelling the length and breadth of the constituency and meeting the electors personally and circulating Ext.R2 pamphlet requesting for votes in his favour. He contended that he was not involved in the printing and publication of posters, leaflets or other publicity materials other than publication of Ext.R2, while other such materials were designed, printed and distributed by various organisations of the LDF in the name of the Convener and Secretary, LDF Election Committee, Piravom Legislative Assembly constituency and that the respondent had no role in any such activity and he was not aware of the printing or circulation of any such leaflet. It is contended that he had not consented to the printing and circulation of any leaflet or other publicity material and that his election agent or his polling agents have also not drafted or distributed any publicity material, including the alleged offensive publication, Ext.P1. EP2/2006 -: 5 :- 5.The respondent further pleaded that Ext.P1 would show that it has been issued by the Left Democratic Youth Front (LDYF), Piravom Mandalam Committee. He further averred that Ext.P1 was issued in reply to Ext.R1 pamphlet issued by the Convener, Election Committee, United Democratic Front, Piravom Assembly Constituency and that Ext.P1 was issued by the LDYF in answer to the claims made in Ext.R1. He, however, pleaded that Ext.P1 was not prepared with either his consent or knowledge or with the consent or knowledge of his election agent. The respondent also denied that Ext.P1 notice contains personal accusations, which are false. The respondent has averred that the statements in Ext.P1 are not accusations against the private or personal character of P.W.30. The respondent has further averred that Exts.R10 and R11 would show that there was an attempt to murder some persons who had left the political party of P.W.30. According to the respondent, Sri.Scaria, the second accused in that case was a member of the personal staff of P.W.30, while he was a minister and that the said Sri.Scaria was not EP2/2006 -: 6 :- arrested by the police, though his whereabouts were known to all. The respondent also disputed the alleged distribution of Ext.P1, with his consent. 6.During the course of the case, the respondent through counsel raised a preliminary objection that the verification of the election petition and the affidavit filed by the election petitioner in Form 25 in terms of Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 read with Section 83 of the Act are defective and that the election petition is liable to be rejected. On such objection being taken, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for an opportunity to cure such defect. The opportunity granted following such request was utilised and yet another affidavit in Form 25 stands filed afresh which cures any defect regarding the verification and also the affidavit in Form 25 that was tendered along with the election petition. 7.On the basis of the pleadings on record, the EP2/2006 -: 7 :- following issues were settled for trial: i. Is the petition maintainable? ii. Do the allegations constitute a corrupt practice for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? If so, has it been proved? iii. If Issue No.II is answered in the affirmative, has the result of the election of the respondent been materially affected by such corrupt practice? iv. Is the election of the respondent liable to be set aside as prayed for? v. What shall be the order as to costs? 8.After recording the documentary and oral EP2/2006 -: 8 :- evidence tendered by P.W.1 - the election petitioner, P.W.2 to P.W.31, R.W.1 to R.W.3 and the respondent as R.W.4, an order was issued on 2-2-2007, directing issuance of notice to R.W.1 Sri.O.N.Vijayan, R.W.2 Sri.Jinson V. Paul and R.W.3 Sri.P.G.Manu in terms of the proviso to Section 99(1) of the Act to show cause why they should not be named in the final order in this election petition as persons who have committed the corrupt practice, as noticed in the said order. Opportunities as are available to them under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 99(1) were notified to them as available, if they so desire. 9.Pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notices, R.W.1, R.W.2 and R.W.3 entered appearance and filed separate replies. R.W.1 took the stand that Ext.P1 was not published by the LDF Election Committee and that the contents of Ext.P1 do not affect the personal character or conduct of the contesting candidate. R.Ws.2 and 3 filed separate replies, taking the stand that Ext.P1 was published by LDYF and that the EP2/2006 -: 9 :- statements therein were made on the basis of facts which were publicly known. 10.Even while issuing the order dated 2-2-2007, it was noticed that in the event of it being held that Ext.P1 was published by or with the consent of the respondent or R.W.1, his election agent, Issue No.III as framed, would not survive for consideration as such since the allegations, if established, would otherwise fall pithily under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, as per order dated 2-2-2007, Issue No.III was struck off. 11.Pending proceedings on the basis of the notices issued to R.W.1, R.W.2 and R.W.3, the order dated 2-2-2007 was challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Ultimately, Civil Appeal No.1250 of 2007 was disposed of by order dated 20-2-2008, noticing that the contents of the order dated 2-2-2007 are only prima facie findings and the matter has to be proceeded with and decided in accordance with law with reference to Sections 98 and 99, EP2/2006 -: 10 :- after giving opportunity to the three noticees also, before deciding the matter, finally. The case has accordingly been remitted for final disposal. 12.After the noticees filed their respective replies to the show cause notices, P.W.30 was again examined on the request of the noticees, as X.W.1. The Official Report of the Proceedings of the Kerala Legislative Assembly regarding the 12th Session of the 11th Kerala Legislative Assembly, prepared and published under Rule 308 (iii) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, was marked as Ext.X1 and certain portions of that document were also specifically marked. X.W.2 to X.W.5 were examined. R.W.3 and R.W.2 were again examined as X.W.6 and X.W.7 and R.W.1 again tendered evidence as X.W.8. 13.Having regard to some of the statements made by P.W.30 as X.W.1, the noticees filed applications to call upon the Secretary of the Kerala Legislature to produce the CD versions of the EP2/2006 -: 11 :- proceedings of the Legislature as regards Ext.X1. The Legislature through the Secretary placed on record that the Kerala Legislative Assembly's Committee on Privileges and Ethics had recommended to the Assembly against the production of the videograph and the Assembly had unanimously accepted the said recommendation. The stand taken in the affidavit dated 3-4-2008 filed by the Secretary of the Kerala Legislative Assembly through the Deputy Secretary was accepted and it was ordered that production of the videograph cannot be insisted or enforced (See order dated 8-4-2008). 14.With the entire materials now on record, the focus of the submissions at the time of final hearing was confined to the question of responsibility of having published Ext.P1 and as to whether Question Nos.2 and 6 in page 3 of Ext.P1 amount to statements of facts affecting the personal character and conduct of P.W.30 Sri.T.M.Jacob and still further, whether the tail-piece of Ext.P1 containing the exhortation to “recognise the shameless hypocrite of EP2/2006 -: 12 :- development trickery......react against the deceiver of the people.....” amounts to a statement of facts affecting the personal character and conduct of P.W.30, in the setting in which it is placed, referable to Question Nos.2 and 6 in page 3 of Ext.P1 and as to whether the election is liable to be set aside on grounds referable to Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(4) of the Act. 15.Barring the effect of the materials placed on record after the order dated 2-2-2007 and the consideration of the submissions on behalf of the noticees, the respondent and the petitioner regarding the appreciation of evidence and the legal issues involved, the assimilation of the materials on record adduced before the order dated 2-2-2007 is not much at variance from what has been recorded in the order dated 2-2-2007. Hence, some of the portions of the order dated 2- 2-2007, in so far as they are not at conflict with the views in the order being rendered hereby, have been included, verbatim, as they occur in the order dated 2-2-2007. EP2/2006 -: 13 :- Printing, publication and distribution of Ext.P1 - Responsibility for - 16.P.W.29, the proprietor of Kamal Printers, admitted to have printed Ext.P1. He deposed that on 24-4-2006, he was engaged to do the printing and a compact disc (CD) containing the material to be printed, was given to him by R.W.2 - Sri.Jinson, an AIYF worker and the printing was completed and printed material delivered on the evening of 24-4-2006. He stated that R.W.3 - Sri.P.G.Manu, a DYFI worker took delivery of the printed material and made the payment. According to him, the printing of Ext.P1 pamphlets was carried out after obtaining necessary declarations in writing from the Convener, LDF Election Committee, Piravom constituency and that Sri.O.N.Vijayan, R.W.1 was the convener, LDF Election Committee, Piravom constituency. However, he asserted that R.W.1 - Sri. O.N.Vijayan, the election agent of the respondent was not involved in printing Ext.P1. EP2/2006 -: 14 :- This led to certain questions being put by the Court to P.W.29. He then stated that the entry in the 6th page of Ext.P1 shows his press as the printer and that such entry was made while preparing the CD and that it was done with his consent, obtained by R.W.2 - Sri. Jinson. He further stated that he consented to print the material without seeing it and still further that, he had not obtained declaration from the Convener, LDF Election Committee. There was no further material, by the noticees contradicting P.W.29. 17.Sri.Jinson, as R.W.2, stated that the draft of Ext.P1 was prepared by the active workers of LDYF and that the printer (P.W.29) wanted the material to be brought in the form of a CD and therefore, the material was composed through an active worker in Mulamthuruthy and a declaration was given by him (R.W.2) to P.W.29 for the purpose of printing Ext.P1. He also deposed that it was he who delivered the declaration to P.W.29. He further deposed that the printed materials (Ext.P1) were collected from P.W.29 EP2/2006 -: 15 :- and taken to the Office of a Co-operative college in Piravom which was being used by LDYF activists and information was passed on to the active workers in different panchayat areas to collect Ext.P1 for distribution. He further stated that since the polling day was nearing, only a portion of Ext.P1 notices was taken by the active workers and that the remaining were left there. He stated that Ext.P1 was obtained from the press only in the evening of 25.4.2006 and it was distributed only from 26.4.2006. He also conceded that Ext.P1 contains a request to cast the votes for the respondent, the LDF candidate. He stated that “LDYF workers distributed Ext.P1 as part of the election campaign of the LDF candidate, the respondent”. He further stated as follows: “I do not definitely know the panchayats where Ext.P1 was distributed. Ext.P1 was printed and published for circulation among the voters. P.G.Manu, P.K.Suresh, Swamidasan, Siby Padikkaparambil, Vimal Chandran are active workers of LDYF and Ext.P1 was distributed by them and through others EP2/2006 -: 16 :- under their control. They belong to Ramamangalam, Piravom, and Edakkattuvayal panchayats. The distribution of Ext.P1 was not confined to Piravom town. Such distribution of Ext.P1 was in connection with the election campaign for respondent, the LDF candidate and was not for any other candidates. It was on 22.4.2006 that it was decided by the LDYF mandalam committee to print Ext.P1. The decision regarding distribution in different parts of the constituency was also taken on that day.” 18.Sri.Jinson (R.W.2), in his explanation to the show cause notice issued under the proviso to Section 99(1), has taken the stand that the pamphlet was published by LDYF Piravom Mandalam committee of which he is a member. It is pleaded by him that Ext.P1 was not published by LDF Election Committee but it was published by Convener, LDYF Piravom Mandalam Committee. 19.As X.W.7, Sri.Jinson gave evidence stating that he was involved in the preparation of Ext.P1 and it was published by LDYF Piravom Mandalam EP2/2006 -: 17 :- Committee. He stated that he was the Chairman of LDYF Election Committee, though later he stated that there was no election committee for LDYF, but there was only a Mandalam Committee and it was that committee which decided to publish Ext.P1. 20.R.W.3 - Sri. Manu deposed that he is an active worker of DYFI and that LDYF is an organisation consisting of active workers of DYFI, AIYF, NCP etc., with leftist ideologies. He deposed that “Ext.P1 was prepared by the important workers of LDYF including me”. His version corroborates R.W.2 - Sri.Jinson regarding the preparation of the CD and that Ext.P1 pamphlets were printed and obtained from P.W.29 in the evening of 25.4.2006. According to him, he and R.W.2 - Sri. Jinson watched the CD in a computer unit and then gave it to P.W.29, for printing. Regarding distribution, he stated as follows: “The entire printed materials (Ext.P1) were not distributed. LDYF EP2/2006 -: 18 :- workers would have distributed a portion of it. But I do not specifically know as to who distributed.” R.W.3, Manu, further stated as follows: “The bill for printing Ext.P1 and two copies of Ext.P1 were given to the office secretary of LDF election committee because the expenditure incurred had to be accounted for by the candidate.” 21.In his reply to the notice under the proviso to Section 99(1) of the Act, R.W.3 Sri.P.G.Manu also took the stand that Ext.P1 was published by the LDYF and not the LDF Election Committee. 22.In his further deposition as X.W.6, he stated that he was involved in the preparation of Ext.P1 and that it was prepared on the basis of the discussions between him and others. He attempted to characterize his statements as R.W.3 as those rendered based on his personal opinion. EP2/2006 -: 19 :- 23.R.W.1 - Sri.O.N.Vijayan, the election agent of the respondent, stated as follows: “As the convener it was part of my duties to identify the party workers who will work in the different areas within the Assembly in connection with the election campaign. It was also my duty to arrange for the public meetings and other propaganda modes for the campaign. It is part of my duties to ensure that the materials printed by the LDF for the election campaign are made available in different localities within the constituency. LDF workers in each panchayat were given the responsibility of distributing those pamphlets. The workers at the Panchayat level will make available the pamphlets to workers at the booth level and the workers at the booth level distribute the pamphlets to the voters. It is the LDF election committee with me as the convener which decided as to what are the pamphlets to be printed and published in relation to the election campaign. It is the said pamphlets which are so printed that are made available by the LDF for distribution in the constituency.” EP2/2006 -: 20 :- He further stated as follows: “All pamphlets published by the LDF in connection with the campaign of the respondent have been printed showing my name as the publisher. Those pamphlets were distributed by the LDF workers.” He also stated as follows: “I had sent the copies of those pamphlets including the number of copies, expenses incurred etc., as per the return to be filed before the District Election Officer. The candidate has to sign in that return. The return regarding the publications of pamphlets etc. and the expenditure incurred is filed with the signature of the candidate and the candidate signs the same after ascertaining the correctness of the statement.” 24.When Ext.P2 certified copy of the return filed by the respondent in relation to his expenditure was put to R.W.1, he, who is the election agent of the respondent, stated as follows: EP2/2006 -: 21 :- “Ext.P2 return shows that the expenditure for printing Ext.P1 was incurred by me on behalf of CPI-M. All statements in Ext.P2 return of declaration are true. The materials, publication of which is recorded in Ext.P2, were for the purpose of distribution during the election campaign.” 25.Sri.O.N.Vijayan, in his reply to the show cause notice issued under