which has already been held unless clear and cogent testimony compelling the Court to uphold the corrupt practice alleged aganist the returned candidate is adduced. Indeed election petitions where corrupt practices are imputed must be regarded as proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature wherein strict proof is necessary. The burden is therefore heavy on him who assails an election which has been concluded." This Court also said there (at p. 672) (of SCC) = (at p. 299 of AIR): "We regard it as extremely unsafe, in the present climate of kilkenny-cat election competitions and partisan witnesses wearing robes or veracity to upturn a hard won electoral victory merely because lip service to a corrupt practice has been rendered by some sanctimonious witnesses. The Court must look for serious assurance, unlying circumstances or unimpeachable documents to uphold grave charges of corrupt practices which might not merely cancel the election result but extinguish many a man's public life." 1975 S.C./152 XII G-10-H 481. I will now take up the election petitioner's Cross Appeal No. 909/75. Learned Counsel for the election Petitoner very properly and frankly conceded that he could not successfully assail the findings of the learned Judge issues Nos. 4 and 7 relating to alleged distribution of quilts, blankets, dhotis, liquor by workers of the original respondent or the alleged provision of free conveyance by vehicles said to have be hired by Shri Kapur. The evidence on these questions given by the election petitioner was too flimsy and extravagant and was met by overwhelming evidance to the contrary given by respectable residents of localities in which the alleged corrupt practices are said to have taken place. No driver of any conveyance was produced. Nor was any person produced who had actually received any alleged gift or had consumed anything provided on behalf of the successful candidate. 482. As regards Issue No. 2. relating to the use of aeroplanes and helicoters by the original respondent, which was not separately pressed evidently because it was covered by the amendment which was assialed by the election petitioner, the reasons I have given on issue No. 3 for upholding the validity of the amendment relating to the services rendered by Govt. Officials and members of defence forces in due discharge of their duties and enough to cover the points raised. 483. As regards Issue No. 6 relating to the adoption of the drawing of cow and a calf as the symbol of the Congress (R) Party of the original respondent the finding of the Trial Court, based on a large number of authorities was that this is not a religious symbol. This Question was directly decided in Bharatendra Singh v. Ram Sahai Pandey. AIR 1972 Madh Pra 167 at p. 179 Shital Prasad Misra v. Nitiraj Singh Chaudhary* decided by M.P. High Court on 21-7-1971: and Sir Prasanna Das Damodar Das Palwar v. Indu Lal Kanhaiya Lal Yajnik** decided on 27-8-1971 by the High Court of Gujarat. The learned Judge also cited the following cases where it was decided that a cow is not a religious symbol: