N VIMALA DEVI Vs. K MADHUSUDHANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ln the election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Chennur constituency held on 5th March 1972, the appellant was the official Congress candidate and the respondent an independent candidate though both belonged to the Congress Party. The respondent obtained 25,654 votes as against 23,940 votes obtained by the appellant and was declared elected. Thereupon the appellant filed an election petition which was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. This appeal is against that decision.

(2.) Though a number of corrupt practices were alleged in the election petition the only one pressed before this Court was that relating to the distribution of a pamphlet defamatory of the appellant falling under Section 123 (4). That leaflet marked Ex. A-1 purports to have been issued by the Yuvajana Congress, Thorrur. It does not bear the name of the printer or the publisher. But the allegation in the election petition was that it was published by the respondent and his agents throughout the constituency. In Schedule I to the election petition were given the names of villages where the distribution was made, the persons who distributed, the date of distribution as well as the names of persons who received the pamphlet. Certain other details were also given. It was further alleged that the appellant received letters in this regard from some of her supporters in the constituency. These were marked as Exs. A-2, A-3 and A-4. It was stated that the President of the Yuvajana Congress, Thorrur was a man named Uppal Reddy who became a paid clerk of the respondent. The respondent denied knowledge of the pamphlet and contended that Exs. A-2 to A-4 are self serving statements got prepared by the appellant and the persons who are supposed to have written those letters for the purpose of the election petition. He claimed that he was not aware whether Uppal Reddy was president of the Yuvajana Congress, Thorrur but that he was a strong supporter of the appellant. The distribution of the pamphlet either by him or his election agent or his workers with his consent was denied. The names of workers mentioned in the schedule to the election petition were stated to be those of the supporters of the appellant with a view to let in false evidence.

(3.) The learned Judge of the High Court after an elaborate examination of the evidence found that there cannot be any doubt that the allegations contained in leaflet Ex.A-1 go deeply against the personal character and conduct of the appellant and can be taken as being reasonably calculated to prejudice her prospects in the election. This does not seem to have been disputed before the High Court. It was only contended that neither the respondent nor his election agent was aware of the existence of those leaflets nor were they distributed during the election period and even if they were distributed they were not responsible for it. The learned Judge further held that it has to be taken that the allegations made against the appellant in Ex A-1 were false and the respondent did not believe them to be true and he would be guilty of the corrupt practice if the publication was made by the respondent or his election agent or by others with the consent of the respondent or his election agent. He then took up the question whether the respondent or his election agent or with the consent of either any person distributed leaflets like Ex-A-1 during the election period.