J DEVAIAH Vs. NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116 -A of the Representation of the People) Act, 1951, to be hereinafter referred to as the "Act". It arises from the decision of the Election Tribunal, Mysore, in Election Petition No. 48/61 on its file.

(2.) THE appellant is the returned candidate in the general elections held in 1962, from the Mandya Constituency to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly. The first respondent herein was the petitioner before the Tribunal. He is one of the voters in that Constituency. The second respondent was one of the defeated candidates. He was the congress nominee. The third respondent was yet another candidate who contested the general elections without success. The tribunal set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he was guilty of corrupt practices falling under Section 123(4) of the "Act" during the Election. It declared the second respondent as having been elected despite the fact that he had secured less votes than the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) THE Tribunal rejected all the grounds put forward on behalf of the petitioner excepting one. It upheld the petitioner's contention that the appellant and his supporters with his consent had published during the election Exhibit P -1, which according to the Tribunal contained a false statement viz., that the second respondent worked against the congress nominee in the, Mandya Constituency in 1957 general election. The Tribunal further held that the appellant believed that statement to be false or at any rate he did not believe it to be true. It also held that the statement in question related to the personal character or conduct of the second respondent and the same was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the second Respondents election. It is this finding that is challenged before this Court. The other grounds put forward in the Election Petition were found against the petitioner. These findings were not challenged in this court.