(iii) Equal attention was paid to all the three constituencies and there was proportionate use of the vehicles for the three constituencies. Mr. Shanti Bhushan would have us to accept the first or the third possibility and would rule out the second. If so, it was , in my opinion, essential for the respondent to lead some evidence regarding the use of the 23 vehicles. He did nothing of the kind. Neither the owners nor the drivers of the those vehicles were examined as witnesses. There was also, as mentioned earlier, no other cogent evidence to show that those vehicles or any of them were used for the appellant’s election in the Rae Bareli constituency, and if so, to what extent. The respondent himself did not come into the witness box to substantiate the charge against the appellant regarding the use of the 23 vehicles. The fact that Dal Bahadur Singh was not examined as a witness on behalf of the appellant would not warrant the filling in of the gaps and lacunae in the evidence adduced by the respondent by a process akin to guess work. It is no doubt true that by using a vehicle for the furtherance of the prospects of candidates in more than one constituency one should not be allowed to circumvent the salutary provisions of the RP Act in this respect. To prevent such circumvention, it is essential that evidence should be led to show as to what was the extent of the user of the vehicle in the constituency concerned. In Hans Raj v. Pt. Hari Ram, (1968) 40 Ele LR 125 (SC) a jeep hired by the Congress Committee during elections was used in more than one constituency, including that of the returned candidate who was a Congress nominee. Question arose as to whether the expense incurred in connection with that jeep could be included in the election expenses of the returned candidate. While answering the question in the negative, Hidayatullah, C.J. Observed: ‘‘The bill stands in the name of the Congress Committee and was presumably paid by the Congress Committee also. The evidence, however, is that this jeep was used on behalf of the returned candidate and to that extent we subscribe to the finding given by the learned judge. Even if it be held that the candidate was at bottom the hirer of the jeep and the expenditure on it must be included in his account, the difficulty is that this jeep was used also for the general Congress propaganda in other constituencies. As we stated, the jeep remained in Chalet and at Mubarakpur. No doubt Chalet is the home town of the returned candidate and his office was situated at Mubarakpur but that does not indicate that the jeep was used exclusively on his account. The petrol chart shows that petrol was bought at several pumps, both inside the constituency and outside. This shows, as does the evidence, that the jeep was used not only in this constituency but also in the other constituencies. If this be true, then, it is almost impossible on the evidence as it exists in this case to decide how much of the use went for the benefit of the returned candidate and how much for the use of candidates in the other constituencies also put up by the Congress Committee. In this situation it is difficult to say that the whole of the benefit of the jeep went to the returned candidate and once we hold that the entire benefit did not go to him, we are not in a position to allocate the expenses between him and the other candidates in the other constituencies.’’