# PROF. RAMCHANDRA G. KAPSE ETC v. HARIBANSH RAMAKBAL SINGH ETC - **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 471 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1995-12-11 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4334 of 1994 - **Bench:** J.S. Verma, N.P. Singh, K. Venkataswami - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/prof-ramchandra-g-kapse-etc-v-haribansh-ramakbal-singh-etc-13643 - **Pages:** 21 ## Headnote Represe11tation of the People Act 1951-Sections 99(1) Proviso, 100(1)(b), 123(3), 123(3A}-De11ial of opportunity to noticee to plead a11d prove constituent parts of co1rnpt practic~Whether noticee could be held guilty of commission of corrupt practic1'-lfeld, noticee has i11depende11t 1ight to show that co11stitue11t pa1ts of corrupt practice are not made out and that conuptpractice alleged is not proveli-Noticee cannot be refused this opportzmity at the threshold eve11 if ca11didate omits to deny existence of a11y constituent part of com1pt practice-Order 11ami11g noticee for commission of conupt practice, held, vitiated-Section 116A-Election-<:orrupt Practice Civil Procedure Code 1908--0rder VIII Rule 5(1}-Repi~sentation nf A B c D the People Act 1951-Sections 100(1)(b), 123(3), 123(3A}-Consent of retwned candidate to offe11ding speeches alleged-Implied admission of aver1nents by non-traverse in written statement, whether made out-Held, when alleged consent qenied to have been given either expressly or by implication, E and assertion of retwned candidate that he was in 110 way cp,!'nectrd 1".ith any act of alleged agent or responsible for her actions, denial contemplated Under Order VIII Rule 5, clearly made out-Refusal of permission to lead evidence about personal absence on ground that specific denial not made in written statement, held, contrary to /aw-Such evide11ce may be significant F 011/y to assess probative value but it cannot be shut out as i"elevant or i11admissible--E/ection-Corrupt Practice--Pleadi11gs Evidence Act 1872, Section 11 Representation of the People Act 1951-Sectio11s 123(3), 123(3A), 100(1 )(b ), 29A-Whether manifesto of political party could by itself constitute G basis for finding of corrupt practic~Whether appeal for votes on ground of religion made out-Held, manifesto of political party could not by itself form basis for holding candidate guilty of com1pt practice where no part in its draftin~ or use in campaign attributed to candidat1'-lield fu1ther, on facts, appeal on ground of religion not established-No legal evidence to prove H 471 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A allegation of corrnpt practice-Election of returned candidate upheld-Election-Corrnpt Practice-Secularism. Election for the Lok Sabha from the Thane Parliamentary constituency was held on 15 June 1991. The election of appellant, the BJP candidate, was challenged in an election petition alleging corrupt practice. B The allegation was based on three speeches made by Sadhvi Rithambra, L.K. Advani and Pramod Mahajan. The High Court, while rejecting the claim in the petition on the basis of the speech of L.K. Advani, held the other two speeches to be corrupt C practice under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A), Representation of the People Act 1951 ('Act'). It held that both these speeches had been made in the presence of the appellant which proved his consent. The High Court disallowed, in the examination-in-chief, questions put to the appellantreturned candidate indicating his personal absence from the meeting held wherein one of the alleged speeches was made, on the ground that there D was no specific denial of his presence at the meeting in his written statement. An application for amendment of the written statement was also rejected. An SLP to this Court against that order was dismissed. Thereafter, the deposition of the appellant- candidate having concluded and the evidence being closed, notices under Section 99 of the Act were given to the E two noticees. The noticee's application for calling evidence to prove the absence of the appellant-candidate from her meeting was rejected by the High Court. The noticee's SLP to this court was dismissed. The High Court thereafter allowed the election petition and declared the election of the appellant to be void. F In appeal, this Court considered whether the noticee had an independent right to plead and prove the want of any constituent part of the corrupt practice alleged; wheth ## Text _Characters 0–39,861 of 50,496. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39861 for what follows._ PROF. RAMCHANDRA G. KAPSE ETC. v. HARIBANSH RAMAKBAL SINGH ETC. DECEMBER 11, 1995 [J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Represe11tation of the People Act 1951-Sections 99(1) Proviso, 100(1)(b), 123(3), 123(3A}-De11ial of opportunity to noticee to plead a11d prove constituent parts of co1rnpt practic~Whether noticee could be held guilty of commission of corrupt practic1'-lfeld, noticee has i11depende11t 1ight to show that co11stitue11t pa1ts of corrupt practice are not made out and that conuptpractice alleged is not proveli-Noticee cannot be refused this opportzmity at the threshold eve11 if ca11didate omits to deny existence of a11y constituent part of com1pt practice-Order 11ami11g noticee for commission of conupt practice, held, vitiated-Section 116A-Election-<:orrupt Practice Civil Procedure Code 1908--0rder VIII Rule 5(1}-Repi~sentation nf A B c D the People Act 1951-Sections 100(1)(b), 123(3), 123(3A}-Consent of retwned candidate to offe11ding speeches alleged-Implied admission of aver1nents by non-traverse in written statement, whether made out-Held, when alleged consent qenied to have been given either expressly or by implication, E and assertion of retwned candidate that he was in 110 way cp,!'nectrd 1".ith any act of alleged agent or responsible for her actions, denial contemplated Under Order VIII Rule 5, clearly made out-Refusal of permission to lead evidence about personal absence on ground that specific denial not made in written statement, held, contrary to /aw-Such evide11ce may be significant F 011/y to assess probative value but it cannot be shut out as i"elevant or i11admissible--E/ection-Corrupt Practice--Pleadi11gs Evidence Act 1872, Section 11 Representation of the People Act 1951-Sectio11s 123(3), 123(3A), 100(1 )(b ), 29A-Whether manifesto of political party could by itself constitute G basis for finding of corrupt practic~Whether appeal for votes on ground of religion made out-Held, manifesto of political party could not by itself form basis for holding candidate guilty of com1pt practice where no part in its draftin~ or use in campaign attributed to candidat1'-lield fu1ther, on facts, appeal on ground of religion not established-No legal evidence to prove H 471 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A allegation of corrnpt practice-Election of returned candidate upheld-Election-Corrnpt Practice-Secularism. Election for the Lok Sabha from the Thane Parliamentary constituency was held on 15 June 1991. The election of appellant, the BJP candidate, was challenged in an election petition alleging corrupt practice. B The allegation was based on three speeches made by Sadhvi Rithambra, L.K. Advani and Pramod Mahajan. The High Court, while rejecting the claim in the petition on the basis of the speech of L.K. Advani, held the other two speeches to be corrupt C practice under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A), Representation of the People Act 1951 ('Act'). It held that both these speeches had been made in the presence of the appellant which proved his consent. The High Court disallowed, in the examination-in-chief, questions put to the appellantreturned candidate indicating his personal absence from the meeting held wherein one of the alleged speeches was made, on the ground that there D was no specific denial of his presence at the meeting in his written statement. An application for amendment of the written statement was also rejected. An SLP to this Court against that order was dismissed. Thereafter, the deposition of the appellant- candidate having concluded and the evidence being closed, notices under Section 99 of the Act were given to the E two noticees. The noticee's application for calling evidence to prove the absence of the appellant-candidate from her meeting was rejected by the High Court. The noticee's SLP to this court was dismissed. The High Court thereafter allowed the election petition and declared the election of the appellant to be void. F In appeal, this Court considered whether the noticee had an independent right to plead and prove the want of any constituent part of the corrupt practice alleged; whether any implied admission of the averments in the election petition could be read in the written statements of the returned candidate; whether the manifesto of a registered political party G could form the basis for finding the candidate guilty of corrupt practice; and whether there was evidence to prove the allegation of appeal for votes on the ground of religion. Allowing the Appeal, this Court H HELD : 1. Bare perusal of Section 99 of the Representation of the RAMCHANDRAG.KAPSE v. HARIBANSHRAMAKBALSINGH 473 People Act leave no doubt that the noticee has an independent right to A show cause why he should not be named thereunder as a person guilty of any corrupt practice, apart from the right of the candidate to defend himself as a respondent in the election petition. The Proviso to Section 99(1) makes it clear that the noticee has the same opportunity as a party to the petition and this is in addition to the right of the returned candidate who is a party to the petition. [ 480-C, 481-C] B 2. Where the candidate. does not deny the existence of any constituent part of the corrupt practice, but the noticee makes the denial, the court cannot refuse to permit the noticee to make the denial and prove it by adducing evidence as a part of the noticee's defence. The credibility of the C noticee's version and the probative value of his evidence, in the absence of any denial by the candidate, is a different aspect which lies within the domain of appreciation of evidence but the noticee cannot be shut out at the threshold by refusing him this opportunity, even if the candidate had availed of the same or has omitted to make that denial for any reason. The D High Court should have formed its opinion on whether the version could be accepted or not after giving the noticee the opportunity contemplated by Proviso to Section 99(1). [481-E-H) 3. The requirement is that denial of allegations of fact should be made of the point of snbstance to amount to specific denial of the allegaE lion of fact. Badat and Co. v. East India Trading Co., [1964] 4 SCR 19, relied on. The written statement has to be read as a whole to see whether any implied admission can be spelt out therefrom. The pleadings have been F misconstrued to read therein an implied admission when there is a denial in the written statement. When the returned candidate denied having given the alleged consent either expressly or by implication and it was asserted that he was in n.o way connected with any action of the noticee or respon· sible for any of her actions, the denial contemplated under Order 8 Rule G 5 CPC was clearly made. At any rate, there is no occasion to read any implied admission by non-traverse. [ 483-H, 484-A] 4. Moreover, in view of the denial of the averments relating to the allegation of corrupt practice based on the speech of the noticee, it was permissible for the returned candidate to . lead evidence to prove his H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A presence elsewhere at that time to improbabilise the allegation of his personal presence at the meeting, this could be done even without any specific averment to that effect in the written statement since it was a relevant fact of which evidence could be led under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. The fact that such evidence is being led without any express B pleading to that effect in the written statement may be of significance only to assess the probative value of such evidence but the evidence cannot be shut out as irrelevant or inadmissible. There is no reliable evidence to prove the alleged conduct of the appellant which was relied upon to prove his consent for the speech of the noticee. [ 484-C-F] C 5. Ex facie contents of a manifesto, by itself, cannot be a coITupt practice committed by a candidate of that party. Registration with the Election Commission as a party requires the memorandum or rules and regulations of the association or body to contain specific provision that it shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law D established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The Election Commission is to register it as a political party only after its satisfaction that these requirements are fulfilled. Admittedly, the BJP had been, and continues to be, so registered as a political party. In such a situation, contesting as a candidate of the party could not be faulted and any part E of its manifesto could not by itself be held to form the basis of holding a candidate of the party guilty of a corrupt practice when no part of its drafting or specific use in the campaign is attributed to the candidate in the pleading or evidence. [488-B-D] F Ku/tar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh, [1964] 7 SCR 790, referred to. 6. There is no legal evidence to support the allegation of corrupt practice based on the speech of the other noticee. There is no witness who has deposed to the fact of the noticee giving a speech and the contents thereof. No particular portion of the alleged speech has been proved to G show that there was any appeal made for votes on the ground of religion, much less any particular religion. Even taken at its face value, a report of the speech made on the basis of notes taken down by a Police Inspector does not make out corrupt practice under Section 123(3). The note at the end of the report that the entire meeting was peaceful without any ur.- H toward incident tends to negative an essential ingredient of corrupt :-rac- 1 RAMCHANDRAG. KAPSE '· HARIBANSH RAMAKBALSINGH [J.& VERMA J.) 475 tice under Section 123(3A). There is no mention of the word 'Hindutva' or A Hindu religion in the report of the speech. This alone is sufficient to indicate that the evidence led in support of the election petition does not make out the corrupt practice either under sub-section (3) or (3A) of Section 123 of the Act. The returned candidate and the noticee have also appeared as witnesses and denied the allegation. [491-B, 489-F-H] 7. The finding of the High Court that corrupt practices are proved is based essentially on the undersiilnding of the mai1ifesto of the BJP which is not even pleaded as the basis of the allegation, and its erroneous assumption that there are admissions that appeals were made in the name B of Hindu religion which is the religion of the appellant. This is wholly C untenable. (491-C] 8. The SLPs filed against the orders refusing permission to the returned candidate as well as to the noticee to lead evidence on the returned candidate's personal absence from the meeting were dismissed by this court obviously because no interference was considered appropriate D at the interlocutory stage in the trial. (477-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4334 of 1994 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.94 of the Bombay High E Court in E.P. No. 6 of 1991. K.K. Venugopal, Ram Jethmalani, D.V. Sehgal, Ashok Desai, B.A. Desai, M.C. Bhandare, Soli J. Sorabjee, B.Y. Kulkarni, Arnn Sathe, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthi, Nitin Pradhan, S.V. Deshpande, M.M. Vashi, Ms. Kiran .Jain, Ms. Halida Khaituri, Ms. Reema Bhandari, Ms. Pallav Shisodia, A. Wad, M.N. Shroff and Ms. S. Krishnamurthi for the Appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F J.S. VERMA, J. : This are appeals under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short "the R.P. A~t") by the G returned candidate Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse whose election has been declared void, and by the two noticees Pramod Mahajan and Sadhvi Reethambara who have been named under Section 99 of the R.P. Act for committing certain corrupt practices, on the ground of which the returned candidate's election has been set aside. At the election held on 15.6.1991, H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A Prof. Kapse was the BJP candidate for the Lok Sabha from the Thane Parliamentary Constituency and he was declared elected on 17.6.1991 having polled 3, 02, 928 votes against 2, 74, 611 votes polled by the respondent who was the Congress (I) candidate. On 1.8.1991, the election petition was filed by the respondent for setting aside the election of Prof. B Kapse on the ground of certain corrupt practices. By the impugned judgment dated 15.4.1994 in Election Petition No. 6 of 1991, Ashok Agarwal, J. of the Bombay High Court has declared the election of Prof. Kapse to be void on the ground under Section lOO(l)(b), and named the noticees Sadhvi Reethambara and Pramod Mahajan also under Section 99 of the R.P Act of being guilty of the corrupt practices under Section 123(3) and C 123(3A) of the R.P. Act. Even though the operative part of the impugned judgment mentions the corrupt practice under Section 123(2) also in addition to those Sections 123(3) and 123(3A), but there is no finding against any one for commission of any corrupt practice under Section 123(2). We are, therefore, concerned only with the corrupt practices under D Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the R.P. Act. The allegation of ccrrupt practices made in the election petition was on the basis of three speeches, namely, on 21.5.1991 by Sadhvi Reethambara, on 1.6.1991 by L.K. Advani and on 11.6.1991 by Pramod Mahajan. However, the speech of L.K. Advani made on 1.6.1991 has not been held E to be a ccrrupt practice either under sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A) and the claim in the election petition on that basis has been rejected. The other two speeches have been held to be ccrrupt practices under Section 123(3) and 123(3A). It has been held that both these speeches by Sadhvi Reethambara and Pramod Mahajan were made in the presence of Prof. F Kapse which proves his consent. Some facts relating to the first contention on behalf of the appellant may now be stated. On 7.8.1992 when Prof. Kapse was being examined as a witness, some questions put to him in his examination-in-chief indicating his personal absence in the meeting held on 21.5.1991 wherein the alleged G speech of Sadhvi Reethambara was made, were disallowed by the courl taking the view that there was no specific denial of his presence in that meeting in his written statement. This led to an application for amendment of written statement to expressly deny the presence of Prof. Kapse in that meeting and to plead his presence at some distant place at chat time. That H application was dismissed on 10.8.1992. A special leave petition in this RAMCHANDRAG.KAPSE '- HARIBANSHRAMAKBALSJNGH [J.S. VERMA,J.J 477 court against that order was dismissed on 27 .8.1992 obviously for the reason A that no interference was considered appropriate at an interlocutory stage in the trial. The deposition of Prof. Kapse was then concluded and his evidence was close on 7.9.1992. Thereafter on 24.9.1992, notices under Section 99 of the R.P. Act were given to Sadhvi Reethambara and Pramod Mahajan. In March 1993, Sadhvi Reethambara filed her reply denying the commission of any corrupt practice in making her speech and she also denied the presence of Prnf. Kapse in her meeting on 21.5.1991. The noticee Sadhvi Reethambera also made an application for calling some evidence to prove the absence of Prof. Kapse from her meeting on 21.5.1991 and his presence at that time at a distant place. Obviously, this was a ground taken by the noticee to prove the absence of consent of the candidate for her speech because even if the language of her speech satisfied the other requirements of the definition of corrupt practice, it could not be a corrupt practice under sub- section (3) and/or (3A) of Section 123 for the purpose of this election petition \vithout the consent of B c the candidate Prof. Kapse. The High Court rejected that application of the D noticee on 8.4.1993. The noticee's special leave petition to this court on 12.5.1993 was dismissed ob\iously because no interference in the trial at this s! age was considered appropriate. The arguments in the election petition were concluded on 12.4.1994. The operative order allowing the election petition and declaring the election of Prof. Kapse to be void was made by Agarwal, J. on 15.4.1994. The pleading with regard to the speech of Sadhvi Reethambara on 21.5.1991 is in para 11 of the election petition which is as under : E "The Thane MAHANAGRI EXPRESS, Hindi newspaper is well F read in Thane. The respondent invited the said Sadhvi Ritambara at Thane. He himself chalked out her programme. As per the invitation given by him to come and canvass for him in his constituency, she came to Thane on 21st May 1991. A meeting was held at Shivaji Maidan, Ambholi Naka, Thane at about 8.30 AM. on the 21st May 1991. In the whole constituency an announcement G was made over the vehicles, auto-rickshaws etc. engaged by the respondent or his workers with his consent, announcing that Sadhvi Ritambara was going to address the meeting in support of the respondent. Advertisements were given in the newspapers about the said meeting in Navbharat Times dt. 19.5.1991. The petitioner H A B c D E F G H 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. had asked his following workers to attend the said meeting and to note down the substance of her speech : 1. B.N. SINGH 2. KAL YAN RAJ 3. DILIP NAKHVA Accordingly the said workers attended the meeting. The report appeared in the next day in the morning. She appealed at length. The respondent welcomed her and voters who attended the meeting. The meeting was well attended. The respondent after welcoming her, set in the audience. Whenever she made a reference to the Hindu religion and to the fact that the BJP-SHIV SENA candidate should be voted as they were standing for protecting the Hindu religion. The section of public including the respondent got up." (emphasis supplied) The earlier reference in para 10 of the election petition is to another speech of Sadhvi Reethambara at Nagpur which is irrelevant for the purpose of this election petition. The reply in the written statement is as under: "25 ......... . ...... In any event the said Ritambara Devi is in no way concerned wiih the present respondent and her acts and deeds are in no way relevant for the decision of the present petition on merits of the case. 26. With reference to paragraph 11 of the petition, this respondent denies that he had invited the said Ritambara Devi at Thane or that he had chalked out her programme or that she was invited to come and canvass for the respondent in his constituency or that in sud1 circumstances she came to Thane on 21.5.1991. All the said a/legations are wholly baseless and false. The petitioner is put to the strict proof of the alleged meeting held at Thane on 21.5.1991 and that an announcement of that meeting was made in the town with the aid of auto-rickshaw allegedly engaged by the respondent or his workers with his consent. It is not tme that the respondent had done anything as alleged in para 11 . ......... The respondent does not admit I .. RAMCHANDRAG.KAPSE v. HARIBANSHRAMAKBALSINGH (J.S. VERMA,J.J 479 that is attributed, to Ritambara Devi as a parl of her speech. The respondent does not admit the contents of Exhibit B or B-1, B-2 and B-3. 171e respondent states that he had nothing to do with the alleged meetings or the movements of the said Ritambara Devi. In any event all the said allegations are wholly unconnected with the . respondent and hence the election of the respondent cannot be challenged on the allegations made in para 11 of the petition." "41. With reference 'o para 24(b) this respondent denies that the respondent at any ame had invited Ritambara Devi to canvass for him in public meeting on 21.5.1991. It is not tme that the respondent A B was present in the meeting of the office bearers or that it was decided C to invite Ritambara Devi. The respondent denies that expressly or impliedly he had consent to the alleged offending speeches of Ritambara Devi. 11 (emphasis supplied) The contention of the election petitioner which was accepted by the High Court is reiterated at the hearing before us that the above pleading amounts to an implied admission of the personal presence and participaD tion uf prof. Kapse in the meeting held on 21.5.1991 at Shivaji Maidan, Thane between 8.30 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. amounting to his consent, and, E therefore, Prof. Kapse was rightly denied permission to adduce evidence of his absence in that meeting and presence elsewhere at that time. The High Court's view is that this pleading amount to an implied admission by Prof; Kapse of his personal presence and participation in the meeting of Sadhvi Reethambara on 21.5.1991 on account of which his consent for the entire speech of Sadhvi Reethambara is proved. Apart from the question whether the pleadings have been correctly construed to take this view in respect of Prof. Kapse, the further question F is whether the noticee Sadhvi Reethambara could be denied the opportunity at the inquiry held under Section 99 to plead and prove the absence G of Prof. Kapse from her meeting as a part of her defence. If the noticee under Section 99 has an independent right to plead and prove the want of any constituent part of the corrupt practice of which . he is liable to be named under Section 99 of the R.P. Act, visiting him with penal conseqnences in addition to the penal consequences which ensue to the returned candidate, then denial of that opportnnity to the noticee is itself snfficient H 480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A to vitiate the inquiry made under Section 99. Since denial of this opportunity to the noticee Sadhvi Reethambara is for the same reason for which it was denied to the returned candidate Prof. Kapse, namely, the view taken that there was no specific denial in the written statement of Prof. Kapse of his personal presence at that meeting, this question with reference to its B effect on the case of the noticee may first be examined. Bare perusal of Section 99 leaves no doubt that the noticee has an independent right to show cause why he should not be named thereunder as a person guilty of any corrupt practice, apart from the right which the candidate has to defend himself as a respondent in the election petition. C This right of the noticee is the same as that of a person who is a party to the petition and resort to Section 99 becomes necessary only when the noticee thereunder is not already a party to the petition and there is a likelihood of he being named as a person guilty of any corrupt practice. Section 99 of the R.P. Act is as under : D E F G H 99. Other orders to be made by the High Court. - (1) At the time of making an order under section 98 the High Court shall also make an order - (a) where any charge is made in the petition of any corrupt practice having been committed at the election, recording (i) a finding whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been committed at the election, and the nature of that corrupt practice; and (ii) the names of all persons, if any, who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt practice and the nature of that practice; and (b) fixing the total amount of costs payable and specifying the persons by and to whom costs shall be paid : Provided that a person who is not a party to the petition shall not be named in the order under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) unless- (a) he has been given notice to appear before the High Court and to show cause why he should not be so named; and RAMCHANDRAG. KAPSE '· HARIBANSH RAMAKBALSJNGH (J.S. VERMA, J.J 481 (b) if he appears in pursuance of the notice, he has been A given an opportunity of cross-examining any witness who has already been examined by the High Court and has given evidence against him, of calling evidence in his defence and of being heard. (2) In this section and in section 100, the expression 11agent" has the same meaning as in section 123." B The proviso in sub-section (1) of Section 99 makes it clear that. the noticee has the same opportunity as a party to the petition and this is an addition to the right of the returned candidate who is a party to the C petition. Even if the candidate as a party to the petition omits to deny the existence of any constituent part of the corrupt practice, it is open to the noticee under Section 99 who has an independent right to do so, for the purpose of showing that all the constituent parts of the corrupt practice are not made out on account of which the corrupt practice alleged is not D proved and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty of that corrupt practice and named under Section 99 of the R.P. Act. In a case where the candidate does not deny the existence of any constituent part of the corrupt practice, but the noticee makes the denial, the court cannot refuse to permit the noticee to make the denial and prove it by adducing evidence as a part of the noticee's defence. The credibility of the noticee's version and the E probative value of his evidence, in the absence of any denial by the candidate, is a different aspect which lies within the domain of appreciation of evidence but the noticee cannot be shut out at the threshold by refusing him this opportunity, even if the candidate has not availed of the same or has omitted to make that denial for any reason. Nothing of any significance F to require a specific mention was said on behalf of the respondent to doubt the correctness of this proposition which is so obvious . . It is difficult to appreciate how the High Court could reach a different cpnclusion and on its erroneous impression deny to the noticee G the right she had to plead and prove the absence of the candidate Prof. Kapse from her meeting and the want of the candidate's consent for her speech, in order to show that the alleged corrupt practice was not made out for want of an essential constituent part thereof on account of which she could not be held gnilty for the commission of any corrupt practice. It was for the High Court after giving her the opportunity contemplated by H 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 99 to have ultimately formed its opinion whether her version could be accepted or not. That stage, however, did not reach because of the error committed at the threshold of the inquiry made under Section 99 of the R.P. Act by denial of this opportunity to the noticee. It must also be borne in mind that the election petition is B based on the ground under Section lOO(l)(b) and not Section lOO(l)(d)(ii) of the R.P. Act. c We would also indicate later that the pleadings have been misconstrued to read therein an implied admission when there is a denial in the written statement. It is, therefore, obvious that the order naming Sadhvi Reethambara under Section 99 for commission of the corrupt practice is vitiated for the above reason alone and the order made against her has to be set aside. The question now is of the effect of this conclusion. D It has now to be seen whether an implied admission of the averment in the election petition of Prof. Kapse's presence and conduct at the meeting of Sadhvi Reethambara at Thane on 21.5.1991 can be read in his written statement on the ground of non-traverse by virtue of Order 8 Rule 5(1) C.P.C. To support the view taken by the High Court, Shri Ashok Desai, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urged that the E implied admission of the allegation made in para 11 of the election petition flows from the absence of a specific denial of the relevant facts alleged in para 11 of the election petition. The pleadings on the point have been quoted earlier. In para 11 of the election petition, the material facts pleaded for this purpose are; Visit of Sadhvi Reethambara to Thane on F 21.5.1991 on invitation of Prof. Kapse; meeting at Shivaji Maidan, Thane at about 8.30 a.m. on 21.5.1991 at which Prof. Kapse welcomed her and was then present in the audience; and appreciation by Prof. Kapse and the audience whenever she made a reference to the Hindu religion and to the fact that the BJP-Shiv Sena candidate should be voted as they were G standing for protecting the Hindu religion. These are all the n:iaterial facts pleaded in this behalf in the election petition for the purpose of pleading the consent of Prof. Kapse to the contents of the speech given by Sadhvi Reethambara which is alleged to constitute the corrupt practice. In Badat and Co. v. East India Trading Co., [1964] 4 SCR 19, it was H held that Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Order 8 of C.P.C. form an integrated code , RAM CHANDRA G. !