MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. GULAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant was the petitioner in the election petition filed before the High Court. The appellant and the respondent contested from 94 - Erandol Assembly Constituency in Maharashtra in the general elections held on 5-9-1999. The respondent was declared elected. The appellant, so to say, was the runner up. The appellant filed the election petition before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, under Section 80 of the Act seeking a declaration that the election of the respondent was vitiated since the respondent was guilty of corrupt practices as defined in Section 123 (4) of the Act. Various statements said to have been made by the respondent during the election campaign were put forward as amounting to corrupt practices, before the High Court. The respondent denied some of the statements, pleaded that none of them amounted to corrupt practice within the meaning of the Act and that there was not even adequate pleading of corrupt practices so as to justify the election petition even going to trial. The High Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondent and proceeded to try the election petition. The High Court found that the appellant has not established the corrupt practices imputed to the respondent and has not been able to successfully challenge the election of the respondent. Thus, the election petition was dismissed. It is this dismissal that is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) Though as noticed above, various statements allegedly made by the respondent or his supporters were put forward as constituting corrupt practices, before us, only four instances and statements were urged as constituting corrupt practice. The first was, the statement made by one Subhash Deorao Patil to the effect that the appellant had taken money while voting for the Rajya Sabha elections. The said allegation was made by Subhash Deorao Patil in the presence of the respondent and it was urged that it must be taken to have been made with the consent of the respondent. The other three statements were attributed to the respondent himself and according to the appellant the respondent had alleged that the appellant had distributed money to voters for securing their votes; that the appellant was drunkard and that he had indulged in unfair practices to pass his examinations in his earlier days. These statements were false to the knowledge of the respondent and they related to the personal character of the appellant and these statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellants selection. It may be stated that the Court which tried the election petition, came to the conclusion that the appellant had not established his case based on these aspects and dismissed the election petition. Learned counsel for the appellant attacked the findings of the trial court and learned counsel for the respondent defended the findings and sought dismissal of the appeal.

(3.) Section 123 of the Act describes what are corrupt practices. Sub- section (4) thereof says that the publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement or fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of that candidate, amounts to a corrupt practice. In the light of this position, we shall now deal with the effect of the four statements, one attributed to a supporter of the respondent and the other three to the respondent himself.