IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No.3730 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 04, 2008 Dinesh Kumar .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to order dated 16.1.2007, passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. Appellant, Dinesh Kumar, filed a petition for declaring the election of Rajinder Raja, respondent No.2, to be void and further for declaring the appellant as a returned candidate. The election at issue was to Municipal Committee, Rajpura, held on 9.3.2003 for the post of Councillor from Ward No.19. The allegations made were with regard to corrupt practices. Having dealt with the issue at hand, it has been noticed in the impugned order that reliance was placed by the election petitioner/ appellant on certain news reports. The facts given in the news F.A.O. No.3730 of 2007 2 reports, however, were not substantiated by any evidence. So far as news reports are concerned, they were not relied upon on account of the law as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 Punjab 215 and Quamarul Islam vs. K. Kanta & Others, 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 5 as under Section 81 of the Evidence Act, 1872, news reports are only hearsay evidence and per- se are not evidence of the contents thereof. I do not find any legal infirmity in these findings. The other ground for dismissing the election petition is that the petitioner could not produce a single independent witness whose voting right was denied on the polling day or who had observed/ seen the alleged booth capturing. Presiding Officer’s diary or any other document was not produced to establish corrupt practice. The Lower Court, faced with such facts, has relied on Borganran Deuri vs. Premdodhar Bora, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1386 to hold that allegations of corrupt practice are viewed seriously and are to be considered quasi criminal in nature. Standard of proof required for proving corrupt practices is to be equated with the standard accepted in a criminal trial. No such evidence has been brought on record on behalf of the appellant. There were allegations and counter allegations on behalf of the rival parties. While the appellant alleged booth capturing, the respondent denied the same. However, F.A.O. No.3730 of 2007 3 without evidence showing corrupt practice and standard of proof required to establish the same and the charges having not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the petition has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Tribunal, however, has not referred to any material that has not been dealt with in the impugned order. I have considered the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to make out any case in law or on facts, so as to set aside the election on the ground of corrupt practice. I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of facts. Appeal is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 04, 2008 JUDGE avin/kang