“Now, since Ramesh Chand Shukla Advocate is a resident of the same village where Ram Pal resided and since he was an important worker for the respondent No. 1 during the election and was also her Pairokar at some stage, the possibility of Ram Pal having been pressurised by Shri Ramesh Chand Shukla cannot be excluded. Together with it there is also the fact that Shri Gaya Prasad Shukla, another important worker of the respondent No. 1, happended to be the Adhyaksha of the Zila Parishad during the period the witness was examined in the case. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Adhyaksha of the Zila Parishad always wields influence in the rural areas. It will not be out of place to add that when it was put to Ram Pal in cross-examination as to which party did Sri Ramesh Chand Shukla belong he pleaded ignorance about it. It cannot be accepted for any moment that even though Shri Shukla resided in the village in which this witness resided and even though Shri Shukla was such a prominent worker of the Congress party Ram Pal would not have known about it.” 420. I do not know how, when workers of the Congress party were divided into two camps and had been changing sides from time to time, ignorance of a worker's precise party loyalties meant that Ram Pal was untruthful. If mere possibilities of being “pressurised” or biased were enough to tar a witness as untruthful, it is difficult to see how or why the witnesses of the election petitioner on whom lay the primary burden of proof, could escape similar treatment. V.S. Yadav, was, no doubt, an Advocate. But, he was not even paying Income-tax. He felt free, on a working day in Courts to go to the Mela. He was enthusiastic enough as a member of an opposition party to object according to himself, to Shri Yashpal Kapur bringing in the candidature of the original respondent even at a meeting which according to him, consisted mostly of Congress (R) sympathisers. Shri Yashpal Kapur was not so ignorant or inexperienced in election matters and could not be assumed without any evidence to support the assumption to be so imprudent as to make a speech when he would know that, as he was still a Government servant, this would be misinterpreted. 421. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that Shri Yashpal Kapur had been over-powered by such a desire to exhibit an excessive zeal, which got the better of his prudence that he believing that a publicly made gesture of his loyality was needed on this particular occasion cast all caution to the winds and while paying the tribute he was called upon to pay to the memory of the martyrs, suddenly decided to jump into the electoral fray by making an appeal at the martyrs' mela to support Smt. Indira Gandhi, as though the speeches of all those local leaders who in addition to Shri Gulzarilal Nanda, a former Minister are said to have spoken there to the same effect, were not enough. What follows? It is here that we find the weakest link in the misty and fanciful chain of the learned Judge's logic Where was the evidence that whatever else Shri Yashpal Kapur may or may not have been supposed to do on his visit to Rae Bareli, this particular piece of “frolic”, a term used by law relating to scope of authority, carried the “direction” of Smt. Indira Gandhi herself behind it? Indeed, there is not only not a jot of evidence to suggest