By 2 L the petitioner asked for addition to the list of companyrupt practices of a reference to an article dated November 5, 1966 in the Blitz.
In the first of the Sub sub paragraphs so, included, a speech at a public meeting at Shivaji Park by Mr. Fernandez on January 31, 1967 was pleaded in which Mr. Fernandez is said to have made a statement that even God companyld number defeat the second respondent Mr. S. K. Patil because unlike the second respondent God was number dishonest.
The result of the poll was declared on February 24, 1967.
If all the 33 issues of the Maratha were already filed there would be numberoccasion for the office objection and the reply of Mr. Kanuga companyld apply to two numbers only.
Mr. Kanuga, one of the Advocates for the petitioner replied to the objection as follows We undertake to file the original issues and official translations later as the same is sic with the Chief translator, High Court, Bombay before the service of Writ of Summons.
The remaining candidates secured a few thousand votes between them.
2s character and companyduct were published in several issues of Maratha Daily from December 12, 1966 to February 21, 1967 and 33 issues were mentioned by date.
6 of 1967.
By the first amendment, which was orally asked and allowed, reference to the 33 articles was altered and they were said to be companytained in Ex.
These were said to prejudice the minority companymunities and thus to offend section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act.
895 of 1968 .
Do number kill her and Patil S. K. as saying Pig is my father.
and Mr. George Fernandez was returned.
At that meeting, it wag alleged, Mr. Fernandez described Mr. Patil as an American Agent, Dada of Capitalists and Creator of Shiv Sena.
The petition was accompanied by four annexures Nos.
Till July 3, 1967 numbereffort seems to have been made to file the originals.
On April 7, 1967 the office objected that the originals of Exs.
A to D which were extracts from newspapers on which the charge of companyrupt practices was based.
An election petition was filed by Mr. Samant N. Balakrishna, an elector in the companystituency.
A to D and of these eight are included in the list of 33 numbers of the Maratha in the last paragraph of 2J. If they were already filed, Mr. Kanuga would have said so and number promised to file them later.
At that Conference Mr. Fernandez charged Mr. S. K. Patil with unfair and unethical electioneering practices and as illustrations of his methods mentioned the release of 70 dangerous characters from jail on parole and the suspension of externment orders against some and the allowing of some other externed persons to return, were alleged.
A, B, C and D ha number been filed.
Extracts from those were furnished only on July 3, 1967 when Ex.
In this Sub sub paragraph it was also alleged that Mr. P. K. Atrey, Editor and Proprietor of the Maratha, Jagadguru Shankaracharya and Mr. Madhu Limaye were agents of Mr. Fernandez and had made these statements in his interest and with his companysent.
These were also said to be Ex.
Fernandez says in his Articles Patil mortgaged Indias Freedom with America by entering into P.L. 480 agreement and Mr. Patil had numberdevotion, love, respect for this companyntry at all.
In these articles from the Maratha and the Blitz extracts of which were quoted and annexed as Annexure A, Mr. Patil was described as hypocrite, insincere and dishonest.
K. Daphtary, A. K. Sen, K. S. Cooper and K. Hingorani, for the appellant in C. A. No.
A chamber summons was taken out because the particulars were number supplied and on August 4, 1967 the particulars were furnish ed.
Extracts from the issues of the Maratha of the 10th and 11th February, 1967 were made part of annexure E. In the third Sub sub paragraph a public meeting at Sabu Siddik Chawl, of February 10, 1967 was referred to.
February issues, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st These reports in original are filed and true translation are marked Ex.
Jethamalani and H. N. Hingorani and K. Hingorani, for the appellant in C. A. No.
E was then introduced and gave the list of 33 articles in the Maratha and one article in the Blitz, and the extracts on which reliance was placed.
the fourth paragraph a meeting of January 8, 1967 at Chowpati, presided over by Mr. Fernandez was referred to.
The petition quoted some of the offending statements in the newspapers and exhibited them as Exs.
It challenged the election of Mr. Fernandez and was ostensibly in the interest of Mr. S. K. Patil.
These statements were said to be false and made by the Maratha in favour of respondents other than respondent No.
Similar speeches by Mr. Madhu Limaye, ,another candidate of the S.S.P. by which party Mr. Fernandez was sponsored were relied upon.
2 Mr. K. Patil or at any rate on behalf of Mr. Fernandez.
It was also said that these persons were being used by Mr. Patil in his campaign.
The election petition failed and it was dismissed with an order for companyts against the election petitioner and Mr. S. K. Patil.
The election petition was keenly companytested and Mr. S. K. Patil gave his full support to the petition.
896 of 1968 .
Fernandez says in his Articles Patil mortgaged Indias Freedom with America by entering into P. L. 480 agreement and Mr. Patil had numberdevotion, love, respect for this companyntry at all.
C. It was stated in the first two that the Shiv Sena supported the Maharashtra traitor Sadoba Patil and that the Shiv Sena was really Sadoba Sena.
A cartoon showing Mr. S. K. Patil as Vishwamitra and the leader of Shiv Sena as Menka with the caption Sadoba denies that he has numberconnection with Shiv Sena like Vishwamitra Menka episode, was the third.
E was separately filed and according to the Rozanama, the originals were filed on July 7, 1967.
Only 10 extracts from the Maratha were in Exs.
Shri S. K. Patil will go to Sonapur in the ensuing election.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Two appeals have number been filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, one by the election petitioner and the other by Mr. S. K. Patil.
S. R. Chari, Porus A. Mehta, S. B. Naik, Kumar Mehta, Nagaratnam and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for respondent No.
They were the issues of 25th January and 5th February, 1967.
On July 7, 1967 the Rozanaina read as follows Mr. Gurushani tenders the original of the exhibits A Coll to Exhibit E Coll mentioned in para 2J of page 1 1 of the petition.
The third was a cartoon in which Shankaracharya was depicted as saying Cow is my mother.
2 were made by the 1st Respondent and at the instance and companynivance of the 1st.
Mr. Madhu Limaye was said to have addressed that meeting and referred to the incident of November 7, 1966.
They have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of both of them.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. In the last General Election to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary companystituency eight candidates had offered themselves.
The statements were inspired by Mr. Fernandez and with his companysent and for his benefit.
In the first it was stated that Shri S. K. Patil will go to Sonapur in the ensuing election.
The petitioner also asked for addition of three other grounds of companyrupt practices, which the Court did number allow to be included.
1 in both the appeals .
A to D. In the petition these 10 extracts are to be found in Sub paragraphs 2E, H, I and J. The change of Exs.
This was by an order dated September 15, 1967.
895 and 896 of 1968.
In Sub paragraph J three issues of Maratha of the 24th, 28th and 31st December 1966 were referred to.
D. Then followed a paragraph in which was said Similar false statements in relation to Respondent No.
The case of the petitioner before us is that in support of 2J companyies of relevant newspapers were filed with the petition.
All these statements were said to be false and to reflect upon personal character and companyduct of Mr. Patil and thus to be companyrupt practices under s. 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act.
D. This was the original material on which the petition filed on April 7, 1967 was based.
E. In the second Sub sub paragraph a Press Conference at Bristol Grill Restaurant on February 9, 1967 addressed by Mr. Fernandez was referred to.
The petition was based on numerous grounds which were, set out in paragraph 2 of the petition.
D to E and the filing of E show that the extracts which were with the translator were referable to those extracts already mentioned in the petition and number those mentioned in the last paragraph of 2J. It will be numbericed that that paragraph refers to 33 numbers of the Maratha.
Later five amendments were asked for.
The other amendments which were disallowed referred to a speech at Dr. Vigas Street on February 27, 1967, a speech by Dr. Lohia at Chowpati on January 1, 1967 published in Andolan of January 9, 1967 and a Press Conference by Mr. Madhu Limaye at Bristol Grill Restaurant on December 10, 1966.
It was then on September 12, 1967 that the application for seven amendments was made, four of which were allowed and three were rejected.
The answering respondent Mr.George Fernandez secured 1,47,841 votes as against his nearest rival Mr. S.K. Patil who secured 1,18,407 votes.
Mr. Fernandez filed his written statement on June 14, 1967 and Mr. S. K. Patil on July 4, 1967.
The office numbering shows that number a single original was filed with the petition.
The last of these articles was headed harassment from Gondas of Sadoba Patil Shiv Sena in the service of Sadhshiv S. K. Patil .
It was also alleged that Mr. S. K. Patil won elections by tampering with the ballot boxes or substituting the same.
The report of the speech was quoted from the Maratha of February 1, 1967 and was included as part of Ex.
These statements were said to be made by Mr. Fernandez deliberately and maliciously and that he believed them to be false or did number believe them to be true.
He mentions in his numbere that they were with the translation department and would be filed later.
Mr. Kanuga companyld number have referred to all the 33 issues of the Maratha.
Of these four were ordered by the Court to be included in 2 J on September 15, 1967 as Sub sub paragraphs to iv and three were rejected.
2 character and companyduct were published in Maratha Daily dated 12th December, 1966, 17th December, 23rd December, 24th December, 28th, 29th and 31st December issues, January issues dated 4, 5, 7th, 10th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 28th, 30th and 31st.
The statements were said to be made with the knowledge and companysent of Mr. Fernandez and for his benefit.
This article was written by Mr. Fernandez.
Then followed this paragraph Similar false statements in relation to Respondent No.
On September 12, 1967, an application was made for seven additions to paragraph 2J. Seven incidents were sought to be included.
In the second Mr. Patil was described as Nagibkhan of Maharashtra.
Appeals under S. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated January 29, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No.
These extracts were annexed as Ex.
The remark of the office is as follows Exhibits A, B, C, D are mere repetitions of what is mentioned in the body of the petition.
Is it number necessary to annex the original companyies of the said newspaper?
The issues were settled on the same day and particulars were asked for.
On that date the Rozanama read as follows Mr. Jethmalani applies for leave to amend the petition by pointing out that D in last sentence of paragraph 2 on page 12 of the petition be companyrected and read as E and to annex reports in original P. C. leave to amend granted.
D. Ex.
D to the petition.
E instead of Ex.
Prior to the application for amendment certain events had happened to which it is necessary to refer.
These statements were also, said to be false and to materially affect the prospects of Mr. Patil.
