In the witness box for around two hours in the court of Justice F I Rebello, Mehta said he had been handed in the nomination papers, complete in every respect, along with his name on it. He had no idea if the signatories to the nomination paper had signed the paper when the slot for the candidate's name was blank, he submitted.

Pichad, who had earlier been listed as a prosecution witness in the case, was later dropped as a witness in view of the ongoing state legislative session.

While Shekhar Naphade, Mehta's counsel had indicated that he might call Pichad as a defence witness, it seems unlikely now with recording of the witness evidences closing today.

Gidwani, a Shiv Sena candidate who lost the elections, haschallenged Mehta's election, saying the 10 Congress MLAs who signed the nomination papers that eventually ended up nominating Mehta, had no clue that it was going to be used to support Mehta.

Since it is imperative that the 10 MLAs be aware of the candidate they are supporting, Gidwani has claimed that the nomination paper for Mehta itself was invalid.

While Mehta was a sitting Congress MLC member till 1998, he failed to get a Congress ticket for the June 1998 polls, and stood and won as an Independent.

The MLAs, including Congress leaders R R Patil, Dilip Walse-Patil, Madhukar Pichad and Ashok Dhatrak, had claimed they had signed the papers when the candidate's name had not been filled in.

Mehta's victory, on a nomination paper signed by Congress MLAs, created a furore of sorts in the Congress with AICC general secretary Madhavrao Scindia sending a show-cause notice to all 10 MLAs.

Mehta who was cross-examined at length by Gidwani's counsel, Mukesh Vashi, contradicted himself at times, andsometimes refused to give details.

Asked if Congress leader Sharad Pawar, was his ``political guru'', Mehta only said that he ``knew'' Pawar.

In his submission during the examination-in-chief conducted by his advocate Shekhar Naphade, Mehta chronicled that till June 6, 1998 the final day for the nominations, he had not been nominated as a Congress candidate. He then resigned from the Congress. Around 11.30 am the same day, he said, Pichad called him and he met him at 2 pm in his chamber. There, Pichad handed over a nomination form already signed by 10 Congress MLAs and asked him to sign it in front of the returning officer and come back.

Having done that, Mehta returned and was told by Pichad that though he received the form, since he was not a candidate of the Congress, he could not get the requisite Forms AA and BB of the party for the nomination. He also told him not to expect any support from any Congress MLA in the election.

The nomination forms were scrutinised on June 8 and elections tookplace on June 18, 1998. The results were declared on the same day. He claimed that he did not know anything about the controversy about the nomination papers and learnt about it only from the newspapers. He also claimed he did not have any discussion with Pichad or any Congress member after the controversy broke out.

In the cross-examination, Vashi asked him if he was not contradicting himself since in his written submission to the court, he had said that it was not Pichad, but Ranjit Deshmukh, then president of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC), who had given him the nomination paper.

Mehta said Pichad, Deshmukh and MPCC general secretary Gurunath Kulkarni were present when the form was obtained by Deshmukh from Pichad that day.

However, it was felt that the leader of the opposition should hand over the paper, and so it was Pichad who did the needful.

He was asked if he knew that Ranjit Deshmukh was a witness in the case. Mehta answered that he was aware of it and had heard him speakin the court. Vashi then asked him if he was aware that Scindia was the general secretary of the AICC (All India Congress Committee).

Mehta said he knew that through the newspapers. Taken aback, Vashi then asked if he was unaware of it even though he had been a Congressman till 1998. At this, Mehta admitted that he was aware of it.

Vashi pointed out to him that the Congress MLAs could not have signed on nomination papers bearing his name before June 6, since according to his own submission, the Congress candidates were not announced till June 6.

At this, Mehta maintained that when the nomination form came to him, his name was on the form. Only in the slot where the party's name was to be mentioned, the name, `AICC' was crossed out by a whitener and `Independent' filled in.

Justifying this, Mehta said he was expecting to be a Congress candidate but when the party did not nominate him, that had to be changed. ``It was obvious, when the form was given to me, that it was meant for me,'' he said.

Askedif he had good relations with Pichad, Mehta claimed that his relations were good as long as he was with the party. Now, since he was out of the party, he ``hardly had any occasion to meet Pichad''.

He was asked if he knew where Pichad sat; he said he did. He was also asked if he could call Pichad as `witness'. Mehta said that he was not interested in doing so. In the end, Vashi asked if it was correct that Sharad Pawar was his ``political guru''. Mehta, who all the while answered in Marathi, said, ``mee Pawaranna olakhto'' (I know Pawar).