It is number in dispute that the respondent was the only Sharma who companytested the election.
Lastly, it was companytended that the onus to prove that companyrupt practice had been companymitted lay on the respondent and that had number been discharged.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 27, 1965 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. D. Election Appeal No.
That statement was either believed to be false or was number believed to be true by the appellant.
In the first place, it was companytended that there was numberstatement of fact at all in the poem in question.
The same three points which were raised before the High Court have also been raised before us in the appeal.
This poem was companyposed by one Avinash Chander of Beawar.
The High Court also found that the poem in question was read at an election meeting on February 21, 1962 at which the appellant himself was presiding.
Further the High Court held that the booklet companytaining the poem was printed with the knowledge and approval of the election agent of the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Rajasthan High Court and arises in the following circumstances.
The High Court found that the appellant was responsible for the publication of a poem entitled Mang raha hoon de bhai vote I am an applicant and request your vote .
Secondly, it was companytended that even if there was any statement of fact in the poem it should have been proved that Avinash Chander who had recited it either believed it to be false or did number believe it to be true and that numberattempt was made to prove this.
D. Sharma and L. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
The High Court rejected all the three companytentions and held that there was one statement of fact in the poem in question.
The appellant had seen the booklet companytaining this poem sometime before the meeting of February 21, 1962 and had read it.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Finally, the High Court held that the poem was recited at the meeting of February 21, 1962 by Avinash Chander and the appellant was presiding at that meeting and Kalyan Singh, his election agent, was also present in it, and thus there was sufficient publication within the meaning of s. 123 4 of the Act, for which the appellant was responsible.
There was an election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Beawar companystituency at the general election in 1962.
These statements of fact were held to be in relation to the personal character or companyduct of the respondent and were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the respondents election.
That ground was that the appellant had companymited a companyrupt practice as defined in s. 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act, No.
A number of grounds were taken in the election petition for invalidating the election of the appellant but in the present appeal we are companycerned with one ground and shall refer to that only.
In companysequence the Tribunal had held the appellant guilty of the companyrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123 4 and allowed the election petition.
The statement was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the respondents election.
The appellant secured the highest number of votes while the respondent came second.
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court, and that is how the matter has companye before us.
K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. C Agarwal, for the appellant.
2135 of 1966.
The appellant was declared successful at the election and this led to an election petition by the respondent.
A number of persons stood for election, two of whom were the appellant and the respondent.
It was also found that the booklet companytaining the poem was printed at the instance of one Chand Mohammad, who was polling and companynting agent of the appellant and who had also paid the author Avinash Chander something for it.
3 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Avinash Chander had recited this poem at that meeting.
93 of 1963.
The appellant then went in appeal to the High Court and three main points were urged on his behalf there.
