BIRBAL SINGH Vs. KEDAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the general elections to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly held in March 1972 from the Ganganagar Constituency, the respondent who was sponsored by the Sanyukt Socialist Party defeated the appellant, a Congress (R) candidate, by over 22000 votes. The appellant filed Election Petition No. 5 of 1972 in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the election of the respondent on the ground of corrupt practices committed by him and his election agent Bhagirath Singh. The petition having been dismissed the election petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(2.) We are concerned in this appeal with two corrupt practices said to have been committed by the respondent. It is alleged, firstly, that a pamphlet (Ex. 1) was distributed by the respondent and his election agent in a meeting held on February 23, 1972 at Nehru Park, Ganganagar. The second corrupt practice alleged against the respondent is that several copies of a weekly newspaper called "Patal Shakti" dated February 27, 1972 containing a scurrilous editorial were distributed by the respondent and his election agent at a meeting of the Socialist Party held at Public Park, Ganganagar on the 27th. The editorial is also said to have been read out in the meeting by one Vijay Kumar Talwar. The allegations contained in the editorial and in the pamphlet (Exhibit 1 to which the editorial refers are indisputably defamatory of the appellant. The editorial (Ex. 2) contained in the Patal Shakti is alleged to have been written at the instance of the respondent and in a manner, paid for by him.

(3.) This appeal had come up for hearing on August 6, 1975 when by consent of parties two additional issues were returned by this Court to the High Court, with liberty to the parties to lead evidence on those issues. The first issue was whether the pamphlet (Ex. 1) was printed at the instance and with the consent of respondent and whether the payment for that pamphlet was made by his election agent Bhagirath Singh. The second issue remitted to the High Court was whether the editorial (Ex. 2) in Patal Shakti was read over in the meeting of February 27, 1972 by Vijay Kumar Talwar in the presence of the respondent. By its judgment dated April 8, 1976 the High Court after considering the fresh evidence led by the parties held in favour of the respondent on both the issues. Those findings are challenged by the appellant in this appeal.