ground that powers conferred by it upon the Government are bound to be abused by those who hold the reins of Government. I am afraid I am unable to see any force in this contention. The presumption is that a bona fide use will be made of this power lodged in such responsible hands. If such powers are ever exercised in a mala fide manner, it is the particular exercise of the power that can be questioned and struck down. The provision does not become invalid merely because it could be abused as practically any provision of law can be by those who may want to do so. 437. I will next take up the period from 14-1-1971 upto 25-1-1971, when Shri Kapur is said to have gone and voluntarily worked at Rae Bareli and to have done whatever he could to organise the conduct of the Prime Minister's election after his talks with the Prime Minister. The position with regard to allegations in this period is summarised as follows: 1. He is said to have either led or to have joined a procession of cars taken out on 14-1-1971 in the town of Rae Bareily as a part of the election campaign for the original respondent although Shri U.S. Yadav (P.W. 41), an Advocate, who was a staunch S.S.P. worker, produced on behalf of the electionpetitioner, clearly stated that he had not seen Shri Kapur in that procession which he watched but he had seen him only on 15-1-1971. The learned Judge, however, not only relied on the evidence of Shri R.K. Singh (P.W. 42) but also on that of Shri U.S. Yadav to hold that Shri Kapur must have been “associated with” the procession of people seen in cars and jeeps taken out on 14-1-1971 shouting Congress (R) party slogans to start off the election campaign. 2. On 17-1-1971, Shri Kapur is said to have participated in an election meeting held at the Clock Tower. On this allegation, the learned Judge accepted the evidence of Shri R.K. Dixit (P.W. 31), and Shri R.K. Singh, (P.W.42), although both these witnesses only stated that some confusion took place at the meeting and Shri R.K. Dixit did not even remember whether any speech was made at all by Shri Kapur. Shri R.K. Singh also did not state that Shri Kapur actually made a speech but had said that “a disturbance took place when Shri Kapur wanted to deliver a speech......... as a result of which he could not do so.” The learned Judge rejected the evidence of Shri V.C. Dwivedi (R.W. 18) supported by Shri Kapur (R.W.32) himself, that Shri Kapur was not present at all at this meeting. However, on the evidence of the election petitioner's witnesses themselves, Shri Kapur could do nothing whatsoever in furthernance of the election of the original respondent at this meeting. 3. On 19-1-1971, Shri Kapur is said to have addressed a meeting at village Nihasta where he is said to have gone in the company of Prof. Sher Singh a Minister of State in the Government of India. Although, the tour programme of the Minister concerned showed that the Minister went to that village to inaugurate a Telephone Exchange on 18-1-1971, supported by the evidence of Jagannath Prasad (R.W.16), a resident of village Nahasta, and K.D. Pandey (R.W. 17) Post Master, Sub-Post Office, yet, the learned Judge preferred the