HEMANT BHASTAR DESHMUKH Vs. PURSHOTTAM KALU PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHARASHTRA Legislative Assembly elections for Constituency No.85, Shahada Assembly Constituency were held on 9th February, 1995 and the results thereof were declared on 12th March, 1995. At that election, there were 16 candidates including the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent was declared duly elected having secured the highest votes i.e. 66305.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the aforesaid election petition under Section 80 read with Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ("Act" for short) challenging the election of the respondent mainly on the ground of commission of corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the election meeting organised by the respondent on 22nd January, 1995 at Ranima Plaza Shopping Centre, the respondent was present on the dais when one Sarkarsaheb Rawal who is a senior Congress(I) leader gave a speech appealing for votes for the respondent. It is alleged that during his speech, Mr.Rawal made several false and defamatory statements relating to the character and conduct of the petitioner which said Mr.Rawal knew to be false and/or did not believe to be true. It is alleged that the said statements were made with an intention to materially prejudice the prospect of the election of the petitioner. It is alleged that while the speech was given by Mr.Rawal, the respondent was present on the dais. He did not disassociate himself with the false statements made by Mr.Rawal. It is contended that the respondent has thus consented to the speech made by Mr.Rawal and, therefore, he is guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act. It is next alleged that on the date on which the respondent filed his nomination papers i.e. 17th January, 1995, he organised a public meeting near Indira Shopping Centre. It is alleged that in that meeting, the respondent made several false and defamatory statements damaging the character and the conduct of the petitioner. He called the petitioner a rebel, a fraud a social criminal and, therefore, appealed the people not to vote for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the speech given by the respondent amounted to a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act. It is alleged that these speeches were widely reported in Marathi newspapers. It is also alleged that the speech of the respondent in the first meeting dated 22nd January, 1995 was recorded on an audio cassette which has been relied upon by the petitioner as evidence.

(3.) THE respondent by his written statement resisted the petition. In the written statement, the respondent raised preliminary objections against the maintainability of the petition. In that behalf, it is mainly contended by the respondent that there was total non compliance with Sections 81 and 83 of the Act and therefore, the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act. Based on the preliminary objections raised by him in the written statement, the respondent has taken out Chamber Summons No.955 of 1996 praying for dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 of the Act.