KHUBCHAND BAGHEL Vs. VIDYACHARAN SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by the unsuccessful election petitioner (defeated candidate) for the Loksabha from the Parliamentary constituency of Mahasamund in the general election of 1962. The ground alleged was primarily of corrupt practices by the successful candidate-respondent No. 1, practices coming under Section 123 (4) of the Act, by the publication and circulation by that candidate himself, and with his consent, by his agents and others, of the pamphlet (annexure I) at different places in the constituency during the second and the third weeks of February on approximately the dates mentioned in the petition and in the evidence. The Tribunal found that the contents of the petition did not amount to statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner calculated to prejudice his prospects in the election; it dismissed the petition, though it held at the same time that the publication had been done by the successful candidate himself and also by his agents and others. Hence this appeal, which has been contested by the respondent No. 1. The other respondent, that is, defeated candidates other than the petitioner-appellant have not appeared or otherwise taken any interest.

(2.) THE points for decision are the following: firstly, the preliminary point of limitation involving the straight question whether an appellant under Section 116-A is entitled while computing the limitation to deduct the time taken in the obtaining of copies in the manner provided in Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, whether the pamphlet (annexure 1) 25000 copies of which were admittedly printed by one Tikamchand jain and a large number of which were admittedly distributed in different parts of the constituency was, (a) published at certain places by respondent No. 1 himself, and (b) elsewhere by his agents and others with his consent. Thirdly, whether the statement in the last paragraph of the pamphlet -

(3.) EVEN more than in the usual run of election disputes the present one has been argued at great length and with very considerable ability on the basis of a quantity of evidence. The facts in brief are the following: the Mahasamund parliamentary constituency covered parts of the raipur (and probably some of the contiguous districts) and was a block made up of eight assembly constituencies, Mahasamund being the most important town there. There were in that election for this constituency five candidates out of whom Shri Vidyacharan Shukla-Respondent No. 1 secured 56664 votes, the petitioner 53872 and three other unsuccessful candidates between themselves 48500 in round figures. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 was declared elected. The petitioner came up with this petition alleging 'inter alia' that the corrupt practices already indicated had been committed by the successful candidate and inviting the tribunal to declare his election to be void. Evidence was adduced by both sides, mostly of an oral nature, the few documents filed being at the same time admitted by the parties without controversy. Practicaily the whole case centered round the respondent's consent and personal part in the publication at different places in the constituency of the annexure 1 on which the tribunal actually found for the petitioner. It further held that the contents, especially the two passages set out above, did not amount to the commission of corrupt practices for reasons which will ba indicated in time. In this Court, on the one hand, the appellant has tried to show that the pamphlet and in particular the two passages do amount to statements of the nature the publication of which become a corrupt practice under Section 123 (4), and on the other, the respondent No. 1 has tried to support the Tribunal's order by challenging the finding of his consent and personal responsibility for the publication.