BANSIDHAR PRASHAR Vs. SHALIGRAM SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the elections held to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1972, respondent 1 who contested as an independent candidate defeated the appellant, a Congress (R) candidate, by a margin of 2600 votes. The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent 1 but that petition was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court by a judgment dated July 3, 1973. This appeal is directed against that judgment.

(2.) The High Court framed 19 effective issues out of which issues 1 to 7 and 10 to 14 are pressed before us. In so far as relevant, the appellant challenged respondent 1's election on the following grounds:

(3.) Apart from himself the appellant examined Habib Khan (P.W. 7), Mankhan (P. W. 8), Devlal (P.W. 9) and Ramnath Gandhi Sewak (P.W. 14) in support of his case that respondent 1 made a derogatory speech on March 2, 1972 at the Purana Motor Stand, Nasrullaganj, and that the pamphlet Atma Ki Pukar was distributed at the meeting. Respondent 1 is alleged to have stated in the meeting that the appellant did not believe in the principles for which his party stood, that he looked down upon the Harijans, treated them as untouchables, that his brother was involved in a communal riot in Sukerwas for which he was prosecuted and that the appellant's co-worker, Ramnath Gandhi Sewak, was also communal minded. Respondent 1 admitted that he had addressed an election meeting on the particular day at Nasrullaganj but he denied that he had made the statements attributed to him or that any pamphlet was distributed at the meeting. It is significant that the version of respondent 1 is corroborated by Motilal Patel (R. W. 2) who is a member of the Congress (R) and who held various offices in the organisation from time to time. He was President of the Block Tehsil Congress Committee of Nasrullaganj from 1967 to 1972. He has stated in his evidence that respondent 1 did not make any of the statements attributed to him and that no pamphlet was distributed during or at the end of the meeting. In fact, Bonder (P.W. 10), who is a Harijan, did not fully support the case of the appellant in regard to the statements said to have been made by respondent 1 in the meeting.