DEVI PRASAD Vs. MALLURAM SINGHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madhya pradesh High court at Jabalpur dismissing a petition filed by the defeated candidate Devi Prasad under S. 80 and 81 of the Representation of people Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) , hereinafter called the "act" challenging the election of Maluram Singhania respondent No. 1, the successful candidate from the Birendranagar Constituency in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) The election was held on 16/02/1967. Out of the four respondents, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 withdrew their nomination papers and the election was contested by the appellant and the first two respondents. The result of the election was declared on 2/02/1967the appellant got 14,465 votes. Respondent No. 1 obtained 15,811 votes and was declared elected, the election petition which was filed in April 1967 was contested by the first respondent alone, the proceedings against the other respondent being ex parte. The pleadings of the parties will be presently noticed to the extent they are relevant to the issues on which argument has taken place before us. In all nine issues were framed out of which the controversy in this court has centred round issue Nos. 2 and 3. These issues are in the following terms :the High court decided these issues in favour of respondent No. 1.

(3.) Before the relevant pleadings are noticed it may be mentioned that the appellant was a candidate who had been sponsored by the Congress Party. Respondent No. 1 belonged to the Ram Rajya Parishad which was a recognised political party but since its recognition was withdrawn respondent No. 1 was allotted the symbol "rising Sun' 'as anindependent candidate. According to Para 6 of the petition, respondent No. 1 had set up one printing press known as Sanmarg Press. He was also the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Hindi newspaper known as "saptahik SANMARG" published by that press. It was alleged that the printing of the newspaper was done by respondent No. 1 through his servants and employees. In Para 10 it was alleged that respondent No. 1 and his agents and workers committed, with his consent, the corrupt practice of publication of statement of facts which were false and which were believed to be false and were not believed to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of the appellant. These statements were contained in the paper Sanmarg and in the election bulletins set out in i schedule I annexed to the petition. In Para 11 it was stated that respondent no. 1 and his agents and workers, with his consent, made systematic appeals to the Hindu electors to vote for him on grounds of race, community, religion and to refrain from voting for the appellant on the alleged. ground that thelatter cow-slaughter which was sinful according to Hindu religion. According to the appellant the constituency consists of villages inhabited by persons who are generally illiterate and who are very orthodox in their views. They worship cow as god and consider the killing of a cow a highly sinful act. The statements which were false and mischievous, according to the appellant, were contained in the documents in Schedules 1 and 2 annexed to the petition. In his written statement respondent No. 1 asserted that the aforesaid corrupt practices had not been committed by him or by his agents and workers with his consent. According to respondent No. 1 he had severed all connections with the Sanmarg Printing Press and with the newspaper "saptahik SANMARG". The ownership of the press had been transferred on 2/12/1966 to Bajrang Lal Aggarwal who had filed the requisite declaration before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raipur. A declaration dated 4/11/1956 had also been filed before the Additional district Magistrate to the effect that the answering respondent had severed all connections with the said newspaper. It was only by mistake that his name continued to be shown as Chief Editor after 4/11/1966 on the newspaper. The allegation relating to the appeal to Hindu electors to vote or refrain from voting on grounds of race, community or religion was denied. Respondent No. 1 even denied that the villagers were orthodox in religion and worshipped cow as a god. The respondent emphatically denied that any such publication or bulletins had been issued or published by him or his workers and agents with his consent as alleged in the petition.