SHALIGRAM HIRALAL CHANDAK Vs. GOVINDRAO RATANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after stating the facts, proceeded.] In this appeal the grounds of attack are limited by Mr. Manohar. He made three contentions: 1. That respondent No. 2 was guilty of a corrupt practice inasmuch as a leaflet exh. 122 was published by his supporters with his consent or, in any event, with the consent of his election agent. The contents of this leaflet fell within the definition of corrupt practice as contained in Section 123, Sub -section (3A) and Sub -section (4), of the Act.

(2.) THAT the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 inspite of his disqualification fell within the provisions of Section 100, Sub -section (i), Clause (d) and as it had affected the results of the election, the election of respondent No. 2 should be set aside.

(3.) SECTION 100 of the Act requires the Tribunal to set aside an election of a returned candidate if it is of opinion that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person' with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; Section 123 which deals with corrupt practices says that the following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of the Act: 123. ... (3A) The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his election agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate. (4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election. The question as to whether or not this pamphlet was published by respondent No. 2 or by some one with the consent either of respondent No. 2 or his election agent may be deferred from consideration for the present. The first question is whether it falls either within Sub -section (3A) or Sub -section (4) of Section 123.