MOHANSINGH LAXMANSINGH Vs. BHANWARLAL RAJMAL NAHATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against an order of the Election Tribunal, Ratlam, setting aside the election of the appellant Mohansingh to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Sitamau constituency. Eight persons, including the respondent-Bhanwarlal, filed their nomination papers for election from the said constituency. The nomination paper of Hussain Khan was rejected by the Returning Officer. Himmatsingh withdrew his candidature. The appellant Mohansingh secured the largest number of votes and was declared as the returned candidate. The respondent-Bhanwarlal, who was defeated at the election, filed an election petition, out of which this appeal arises, praying that the election of the appellant be declared void and that he, who had secured the largest number of votes after the appellant, be declared duly elected. The election of the appellant was sought to be set aside on several grounds which included charges of corrupt practices committed by the appellant. For the disposal of this appeal, it is unnecessary to mention all of them because the Election Tribunal found that excepting the corrupt practices to which we shall refer presently the election petitioner had not proved the commission of any other corrupt practice set cut in the election petition.

(2.) THE Election Tribunal has first found the appellant and his agents guilty of publishing two pamphlets (annexures D and E to the petition) containing certain statements of facts which' were false and which they either believed to be false or did not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of the respondent-Bhanwarlal and which were likely to prejudice his prospects at the election. The material allegations in paragraph 11 (c) and (d) of the election petition relating to this corrupt practice are as follows:-"

(3.) MOHANSINGH denied all these allegations, made by the respondent Bhanwarlal, in paragraph 11 (c) and (d) of his counter-statement which runs thus-