most unfair result. And, this is not what the law requires in this Country. The law requires proof of circumstances from which at least implied authorisation can be inferred. 505. The third and the last and a subsidiary submission on behalf of the election petitioner, on election expenses, was that, Shri Dal Bahadur Singh not having been produced by the original respondent, some sort of presumption arises against the original respondent. I do not think that it is possible to shift a burden of the petitioner on to the original respondent whose case never was that Shri Dal Bahadur Singh spent any money on her behalf. The case of M. Channa Reddy v. Ramachandra Rao, (1972) 40 Ele LR 390 at p. 415 (SC) was relied upon to submit that a presumption may arise against a successful candidate from the non-production of available evidence to support his version. Such a presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act, it has to be remembered, is always optional and one of fact, depending upon the whole set of facts. It is not obligatory. 506. In Chenna Redy's case (1972) 40 Ele LR 390 (SC) (supra) the evidence seemed to have resulted in a primafacie case whose effect the respondent had to get rid of. In the case before us the election petitioner had summoned Shri M.L. Tripathi (P.W. 59), the Secretary of the District Congress Comittee, who appeared with account books of the Party at Rae Bareily. The election petitioner could get nothing useful out of his evidence. Even if the election petitioner did not, for some reason, desire to summon Shri Dal Bahadur Singh similarly, his counsel could have requested the Court to exercies its discretionary powers under Order XVI. Rule 14 C.P.C, but this was never done. A presumption could not arise on the facts and circumstances of a case in which it could not be said that Shri Dal Bahadur Singh's evidence was necessary to discharge some burden of the original respondent. The original respondent had discharged whatever onus lay upon her by producing her own election agent Shri Kapur, who had kept her accounts. And, she had herself appeared in the witness-box and faced a crossexamination which could not be held up as an example of complete fairness and propriety. I do not quite understand what presumption could possibly arise, due to non-production of Shri Dal Bahadur Singh, against what part of her case, and to what effect. It could certainly not be suggested that there was any duty on her part to repeal some case never set up against her. It was nobody's case that the local Congress party was her agent. 507. I may now very shorty deal with the objection that, as a number of Members of Parliament belonging to the opposition parties were in detention under the preventive detention laws, which could not be questioned before the Courts of law because of the declaration of the emergency by the President there was a procedural defect in making the amendments of the Act of 1951 and the 39th Constitutional amendment. 508. Article 122 of the Consitution prevents this Court from going into any question relating to irregularity of proceedings "in Parliament". It reads as follows :