GURUJI SHRIHARI BALIRAM JIVATODE Vs. VITHELRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the returned candidate from the Rajura constituency of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly in the general election held in February 1967. In that election he secured 21435 votes as against by his nearest rival, the first respondent herein, the nominee of the Indian National Congress. The first respondent was representing that constituency prior to the said general election. The first respondent challenged the validity of the appellant's election in Election Petition No. 14 of 1967 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) on two grounds namely (1) that the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate in that election and (2) that he was guilty of corrupt practices under section 123 (4) of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he was guilty of publishing statements of facts which are false and which he either believed to be false or did not believe them to be true, in relation to the personal character and conduct of the first respondent. It did not uphold the contention of first respondent that the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate.

(2.) Though at one stage Mr. Hazarnavis, learned Counsel for the first respondent attempted to support the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate, he finally gave up that contention. Therefore it is not necessary to examine the same.

(3.) The High Court had found that the appellant was responsible for the publication of Exhs. 55 and 56 which according to it contained statements of facts relating to the personal character and conduct of the first respondent and those statement were either false to his knowledge or at any rate he did not believe them to be true. It further came to the conclusion that in some of the election meetings the appellant had falsely stated that the first respondent had a share in the contract secured by him for one Abid Hussain.