evidence of Shri R.K. Singh (P.W.42) for the election-petitioner despite the infirmity in this evidence that it was neither consistent with the tour programme of the Central Government Minister sent in advance for this function nor with the unshaken evidence of those who organised the function. 4. It was alleged that Shri Kapur on 19-1-1971, again in the company of Prof. Sher Singh, the Central Government Minister, mentioned above, attended a meeting held in Lalganj. So far as this particular allegation is concerned, the learned Judge thought that it could not be accepted because it was supported only by one highly partisan witness. Shri G.N. Pandey, against 4 faultless witnesses: Abdul Jabbar (R.W.25). Fatesh Bahadur Singh (R.W.26). Ishwar Chand (R.W.27), and Ranjit Singh (R.W.28). 5. On 19-1-1971, Shri Kapur was said to be present at the inaugural function of the Telephone Exchange at Behta Kalan and is said to have delivered a speech there. The learned trial Judge accepted the evidence of Pt. Shashank Misra, (P.W. 32), admittedly a highly partisan witness, who was believed because of a question put to him in cross-examination suggesting that there was uproar when Shri Kapur started speaking so that nobody could hear what he said. The learned Judge held that this amounted to an admission of Shri Kapur's presence and participation in this meeting. 6. Shri Kapur was alleged to have delivered a speech on 18-1-1971 at the foundation laying ceremony of a new Post Office building at Rae bareli in the company of Prof. Sher Singh, the Central Government Minister, mentioned above. This allegation was not accepted on the ground that it was not supported by any evidence whatsoever. 438. All that the witnesses could remember of Shri Kapur's speech, on each occasion, was that he supported the original respondent's candidature. Out of allegations of acts said to have been committed on 6 occasions by Shri Kapur in this period, the learned Judge found only 4 instances proved. Out of these, it was clear that Shri Kapur could not have done anything in furtherance of the original respondent's election on 17-1-1971, when according to the election-petitioner's witnesses, he was not even allowed to speak. Even if all the election petitioner's witnesses accepted by the learned Judge are to be implicitly believed for this period the position is: (a) On three occasions in this period, from 14-1-1971 to 25-1-1971, Shri Kapur is shown to have made a speech supporting the original respondent's candidature. (b) There is no evidence whatsoever from any source that Shri Kapur did so on any of these three occasions either after having been requested by the original respondent to do so or with her knowledge or consent or approval. (c) The only evidence in the case on the decisive question, coming from the side of the original respondent, is that Shri Kapur did, whatever he did, entirely on his own initiative and in his private and individual capacity, without the slightest solicitation, request, or suggestion from the original respondent who did not even know what he was doing at Rai Bareli. And this evidence, being un-controverted, could not be rejected. In fact, it was not