KUMARA NAND Vs. BRIJMOHAN LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on a, certificate granted by the Rajasthan High Court and arises in the following circumstances. There was an election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Beawar constituency at the general election in 1962. A number of persons stood for election, two of whom were the appellant and the respondent. The appellant secured the highest number of votes while the respondent came second. The appellant was declared successful at the election and this led to an election petition by the respondent.

(2.) A number of grounds were taken in the election petition for invalidating the election of the appellant, but in the present appeal we are concerned with one ground and shall refer to that only. That ground was that the appellant had committed a corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, No. 43 of 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the respondent was that the appellant had published a statement of fact in relation to the respondent's personal character or conduct and that statement of fact was false, and the appellant either believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true. The statement was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the respondent's election. In consequence, the respondent prayed that the election of the appellant be set aside.

(3.) It is unnecessary to refer to the reply of the appellant to the above contention, for learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court. It will therefore, be enough to refer to these findings with respect to the corrupt practice alleged by the respondent. The High Court found that the appellant was responsible for the publication of a poem entitled 'Mang raha hoon de bhai vote:' (I am an applicant and request your vote). This poem was composed by one Avinash Chander of Beawar. It was not disputed before the High Court that the poem in question was aimed at the respondent and he was the target of the attack made therein. The High Court also found that the poem in question was read at an election meeting of February 21, 1962 at which the appellant himself was presiding. Avinash Chander had recited this poem at that meeting. It was also found that the booklet containing the poem was printed at the instance of one Chand Mohammad, who was polling and counting agent of the appellant and who had also paid the author (Avinash Chander) something for it. The appellant had seen the booklet containing this poem sometime before the meeting of February 21, l962 and had read it. Further the High Court held that the booklet containing the poem was printed with the knowledge and approval of the election agent of the appellant. Finally, the High Court held that the poem was recited at the meeting of February 21, 1962 by Avinash Chander and the appellant was presiding at that meeting and Kalyan Singh, his election agent, was also present In it, and thus there was sufficient publication within the meaning of S. 128 (4) of the Act, for which the appellant was responsible.