of the original respondent lay buried beneath circumstances which seem to me to really point in the opposite direction. Some times, even if direct evidence is lacking circumstantial evidence, which inescapably points to a particular conclusion may be even better. But where is that evidence here? I fail to see it and none was pointed out to us. 413. Let me here quote the exact language used by the Trial Judge himself in giving his findings on the first part (relating to 27-12-1970 to 31-11971) of issue No. 1 of the "first set" of issues combined with the issue No. 1 of the additional issues, both issues, for some inexplicable reason, being identically worded. The learned Judge said: "Learned counsel for the respondent then urged that even accepting that Shri Yashpal Kapur delivered a speech at Munshiganj on 7th January, 1971 and that he canvassed support for the respondent in that speech he was not an election agent on that date and there is no evidence of the fact that he had been instructed to do so by the respondent No.1 Learned counsel stressed that consequently it should not be held on that basis that the respondent No. 1 obtained or procured the assistance of Shri Yashpal Kapur for the furtheracne of her election prospects. I have given my careful consideration to this argument as well but I regret my inability to accept the same. As also stated earlier. Shri Yashpal Kapur was occupying a position to trust and confidence with the respondent No. 1 since quite a long time. During the period in question he was Officer on Special Duty in the respondent No 1's Secretariat. In 1967 he had resigned from his post for the sake of respondent No. 1 to be able to do her election work in the constituency. After that was done, he was taken back in the respondent's Secretariat as Officer on Special Duty. Respondent No. 1 held herself out as a candidate on 29th December 1970. On 5th of January, 1971 Raja Dinesh Singh was sent to the constituency. On 7th of January 1971 Shri Yash pal Kapur visited Rae Bareli and on the own admission of respondent No. 1 he did so with previous notice to the respondent No. 1. The subsequent events also appear to be material for according to Shri Yashpal Kapur immediately on return from Rae Bareli he held a talk with the respondent No. 1 on 9th or 10th of January 1971. On 13th January he again resigned from the post and the same day set out once again for the constituency of the respondent No. 1. It was again he who was ultimately appointed election agent for the respondent No. 1. It may be added that it was not possible to adduce any direct evidence on the point whether the respondent No. 1 instructed Shri Yashpal Kapur to go to Rae Bareli on 7th January 1971 for any election work. That can be inferred only on the basis of the surrounding circumstances. I have already mentioned those circumstances above and to my mind the only inference that can be drawn on the basis of those circumstances is that the respondent No. 1 went to Rai Bareili on the aforesaid date under instruction of the respondent No. 1 for doing preliminary work pertaining to her election. To sum therefore it is satisfactorily proved that the respondent No. 1 during the period ending on 13th January 1971 obtained/procured the