MOHANSINGH Vs. BHANWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIGHT candidates (including the Appellant Mohan Singh and the first Respondent Bhanwarlal filed nomination papers for election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Sitamau constituency. The nomination of one Hussain Khan was rejected by the Returning Officer at the initial scrutiny and another candidate Himmat Singh withdrew his candidature before the date of polling, which took place on February 24, 1962. On the counting of the votes Mohan Singh was found to have secured the largest number of votes at the election, and he was declared elected.

(2.) BHANWARLAL applied under Section 80 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 43 of 1951, to the Election Commission of India for an order declaring the election of Mohan Singh void, and Mohan Singh disqualified for committing Corrupt practices detailed in the petition and for an order declaring the applicant Bhanwarlal elected. Among the many grounds of corrupt practices alleged in the petition, two grounds set out in Clause (c) and (d) of para. 11 of the petition survive for consideration in this appeal. It was averred in these clauses that Mohan Singh, the successful candidate, had shortly before the polling of votes published two leaflets in Hindi containing statements of fact with regard to the personal character or conduct of the applicant Bhanwarlal which were false and which Mohan Singh believed to be false or did not believe to be true and that the statements were calculated to prejudice the prospects of Bhanwarlal at the election. Copies of the two leaflets were annexed to the petition, and were marked annexures 'D' and 'E'.

(3.) MOHAN Singh applied to the Tribunal for an order dismissing the petition in limine on the ground, among others, that there was non -compliance with Section 82 of the Act, because one of the candidates at the election named Himmat Singh against whom allegation of corrupt practice in regard to the withdrawal of his candidature were made was not joined as a Respondent. The Tribunal reject d the application for dismissal of the petition and held that it was established on the evidence that Mohan Singh and his agents did commit, amongst others, the corrupt practice defined in Section 123 (4) of the Act by publishing the leaflets annexures 'D' and 'E' containing statements which were false to the knowledge and belief of Mohan Singh, and made with the knowledge that they would reasonably prejudice the election chances of Bhanwarlal. In coming to that conclusion the Tribunal primarily relied upon the testimony of one Rameshchandra, a compositor in the Maheshwari Printing Press, Mandsaur and upon certain corroborative circumstances.