'That in proceeding to consider the evidence, the High Court was :aware of the correct legal position is clear from its Judgment. We have quoted above the observation of this Court in the earlier appeal .arising out of the same election petition that "nothing could be clearer or more reasonable" than. the procedure suggested by the petitioner and accepted by the High Court, Mr. Garg appearing for the appellant made a grievance that the High Court did not apply its mind to judge the quality of the evidence in order to find out whether really there was a prima facie case and depended on the volume" of the evidence adduced in making the impugned order. We do not think .that the criticism is justified. The High Court classified the various .types of 4npersonation alleged into seven categories mentioning all relevant particulars including the names of witnesses on whose evidence the allegation in each ca,tegory was based. The High Court ·was of the view that the eviden~ of these witnesses, if unrebut!txl, would be sufficif!ll,t to prove. the allegation of impersonation. This means the High Court was satisfied that there was a {ll"ime facie case and the mattc:r required further investigation; on the material before us we cannot say that the High Court acted arbitrarily in taking this view. Mr. Garg also contended that there was no ma•erial to support the allegation of multiple voting. This is what the learned Judge ·of the High Court says on this aspect of the case : "I have been taken through various parts of the electoral roll by learned counsel for the petitioner who contends that each one of such persons is shown to be registered at two places in the constituency or in different constituencies by reason of the fact that his or her description as wdl as the description of his or her family members or some of them giv1m ·in the two places is the same. . . . . . It is common ground between the. parties that the votes of such voters have been polled at both the places. In respect of tltese 63 persons therefore the petitiOT1er must be held to ·have adduced ,vrima facie evidence in support of his allegatio~s. Their particulars are soecified in List G appended to 1his ordor." ThlS extract from the Judment of the High Court proves that Mr Garg's contention is without substance. ·
