DILIP GANGADHAR SOPAL Vs. RAJENDRA VITHAL RAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Application, the respondent prays that election petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for non-compliance of provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act.

(2.) The sole ground on which this relief is pressed is that the petitioner has made reference to one pamphlet allegedly distributed by the respondent and his supporters, however, has failed to annex the said pamphlet to the petition, though it formed integral part of the election petition. Although other issues have been raised in the application, the Counsel for the respondent has not pressed the same at the time of argument.

(3.) To appreciate the above submission, it is apposite to advert to averments in para-graph-6-(E) to 6-(H) of the election petition. In paragraph-6-(E), the petitioner has stated about the press conference convened by the respondent, wherein according to the petitioner the respondent made a statement of fact that the petitioner was responsible for the assault on the respondent, which took place on 11th October, 2004. According to the petitioner that statement of fact made by the respondent in the said press conference was totally false. Inasmuch as, the assault was done by the respondent and his party workers on the party workers of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent was fully aware that the petitioner was not responsible since he was not present in the village at the relevant time. The petitioner asserts that the statement of fact made by the respondent that the petitioner was responsible for the said assault was made with an intention to attack the personal character of the petitioner with full knowledge that the statement was false and which he either believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true. According to the petitioner, statement so made by the respondent in the said press conference was made with a view to prejudice the election prospects of the petitioner at the said election. According to the petitioner, the said statement made by the respondent in the press conference is nothing short of corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the Act and on account of which the result of the election insofar as it concerns the respondent has materially affected.