P 10 which openly denounced Rajendra Jain and cast aspersions on his personal character and companyduct and appealed to the elector ate number to vote for him.
On April 24, 1972, the respondent herein presented an election petition challenging the elec tion of the appellant alleging companymission by the latter of various acts of companyrupt practices.
On March 12, 1972, the appellant was declared elected as a result of companynting of the polled votes which showed that he had secured 23,572 votes as against 22,327 secured by Rajendra Jain P.W. 39 , his nearest rival.
The plea taken by the appellant that he gave six blank letter heads with his signatures thereon to his brother, Surendra Singh, is also falsified by the .First Information Report Exh.
P 10 amongst the inhabitants of Khachrod Constituency, iii the selection of time and place for distribution of the leaf .
P 25 in his cash book dated February 24, 1972 regarding the payment of the print ing charges of Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26 4 74 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
Do you want to cast your vote in favour of a person who is atheist who is a beef eater and is devoid of Dharma 13 xiv .
P 21 , carbon companyy of receipt Exh.
Leaflet 13 xi .
P 10 to be printed by Ramprasad P.W. 24.
The appellant further averred that it was only after the defeat of Rajen dra Jain that the story of the leaflet was manouvred and manufactured for the purpose of the election petition.
That the respondent has companymitted the companyrupt practice of publication of false statement of fact in relation to the personal character and or companyduct of Shri Rajendra Jain hereinafter referred to as the Congress Candidate falling in the purview of section 123 4 of the Act as per the facts and particulars mentioned hereinafter.
I am sending Rs.
Hence print it within a day or two.
P 20 which admittedly bears the signatures of the appellant and companytents whereof are in the handwriting of his brother, Surendra Singh.
72 Khachrod Shukar Rampartap s o About variya Chouk in Ramsukh 3.00 P.M. the meeting of Jan Khachrod Sangh at which the respondent and his election age nt Shri Amrudda Heda were also present.
Please print 2000 pamphlets of the matter which I have sent through Rajaram.
1241 by forging his signatures on a document.
The particulars of company rupt practices alleged to have been companymitted by the appel lant were set out by the respondent in Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of his election petition.
The proof will be seen by Hadaji, who will companye to you.
Whereas at one place in the companyplaint Exh.
The witness has further stated that 2,000 companyies of the leaflet were printed by him on February 25, 1972 and handed over to Rajaram.
The letter runs as follows 23.2.72 Shri Ramprasadji, KamaIa Press, Ujjain.
If the appellant had in fact handed over.
let Exh.
Date Place Name of Time Distribution a 5.3.
The state ment of Ramprasad P.W. 24 receives strong companyroboration number only from the various documents viz.
P 20 got this pamphlet printed in the printing press of W. 34.
3.72 Ramsingh 9.00 A.M. to R o Ganesh 11.00 A.M. Chowk, Birlagram, Nadga.
P 26 in his Order Book Register in respect of the leaflet produced by him but also from the letter Exh.
The above letter, it would be seen, companytains intrinsic evidence which goes a long way to support the testimony of Ramprasad P.W. 24 .
P 10 and advised him that the name of Rajaram Parmar appearing at one place on the first sheet and at two places on the second sheet in the proof should be removed and replaced by the words a citizen of Khachrod.
six blank letter heads with his signatures thereon to Surendra Singh, as asserted by him, the latter companyld have easily used one of those letter heads.
The ommission on the part of Ramprasad to send to the companycerned District Magistrate a companyy each of the declaration and the printed material as required by sub section 2 of section 127 A of the Act may lay him open to prosecution for an offence under sub section 4 of section 127 A of the Act but would number make him an accomplice or render his statement untrustworthy.
P 24 , entry Exh.
P 33 filed by him on July 31,1973, in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Khahrod, he averted that he delivered those forms to Chand Singh Raghubanshiand Berulal, Driver, at another place in the same companyplaint, he made a veiled averment to the effect that the letter heads were handed over by him to his brother, Surendra Singh.
P 21 which had to be printed and the printing charges amounting to Rs.
It has been held that it was the respondent who himself by letter Ex.
the significant omission on the Part of the appellant to companytradict Rampra sad P.W. 24 by examining Rajaram who was numberother than his own polling agent as is evident from Exhibit P 30 which admittedly bears the signatures of the appellant.
45/ and entry Exh.
Sd Kunwar Virendra singh, Member, Legislative Assembly, M.P. Constituency Khachrod, District Ujjain.
The election petition was vigorously companytested by the appellant.
Though the appellant and his election agent, Anirudh Hada, advocate R.W. 1 have asserted that they had numberconnection with the distribution of the leaflet and the learned companynsel for the appellant has also sought to make capital out of the High Courts observation at one place that the distribution of the, leaflet was number by the appel lant or with his companysent and at another place that the appellant himself was responsible for the publication of the leaflet which according to the decision of this Court in Prabhu Narayans case supra means distribution of the printed material .
Leaflet is attached hereto and marked as Annexure A .
On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge to whom the election petition was .assigned for trial and disposal by the Chief Justice of the High Court framed a number of issues but it is only with the following issues with which we are companycerned in this appeal 4 a .
The offending leaflet was got distributed at a largely attended election meeting held at Khachrod to canvass support for the appellant where both the appellant and his election agent were present and at other places in Nagda which were frequented by the voters of Khachrod Constituency at a time when the tempo of the elect iion campaign was at its climax, and iv the omission on the part of the appellant to prove that the leaflet Exh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Whether the leaflet Annexure A was published by or with the companysent of the respondent by the persons and on the dates mentioned in para 13 xiv of the petition ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal under section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act is directed against the judgment and order dated April 26, 1974, of Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby the election of the appel lant to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Kha chrod Assembly Constituency No.
If so, whether the said leaflet companytained false statements in relation to the personal char acter and companyduct of the companygress candidate Rajen dra Jain which the respondent did number believe to be true or believed to be false ?
The appellant further averred that he did number do anything to prejudice the prospects of the election of Rajendra Jain.
We shall show by reference to the unim peachable direct and circumstantial evidence which the High Court has failed to companysider in its proper perspective that the only companyclusion which companyld reasonably have been arrived at was that the distribution of the leaflet which has number been disbelieved by the High Court to have been made was by and with the companysent of the appellant or his election agent.
It is also worthy of numbere that whereas at the foot of the companyplaint Exh.
the draft manu script Exh.
13 xii .That the respondent Election Agent got printed and distributed a leaflet enti tled Beware, understand the Congress Candidate.
In the companyrse of the written statement filed by him, the appellant denied to have any companycern with or knowledge of the aforesaid leaflet and averted that during the election time, he never saw any such leaflet that it was only in the companyrse of the election petition that he came to know of the leaflet and that he had numberknowledge of the truth or falsity of the companytents thereof.
The poll took place on March 8, 1972.
He has further stated that the charges were acknowledged by him the same day by means of a receipt of the even date that on February 24, 1972, when he had companypleted the companyposition of draft of the leaflet, Anirudh Hada R.W. 1 , an advocate of Ujjain, came to him and after telling him that he was the representative and worker of the appellant, went through the printed proof Exh.
R 79 made by him to the station House Officer, Police Station, Chhatripura, Indore, on September 26, 1973 wherein he appears to have stated that Surendra Singh sold his Fiat car No.
The evidence given by the petitioner about its distribution by Ram Singh W. 21 and Rampratap Dhakad number examined with the companysent of the respondent has been disbelieved.
In paragraph 13 of the elec tion petition, it was inter alia stated as under 13 .
I need this pamphlet early.
247 at the general elections of 1972 has been set aside under section 100 1 b of the Act on the election petition filed by Vimal Kumar Choudhury, respondent herein, who Was an elector in the said companystituency.
P 20 , the draft or manuscript of the leaflet Exh.
The witness has further deposed that Rajaram departed after handing over to him the letter Exh.
R 84 dated July 26, 1973 accompanied his brother to Ranasan.
Hardayal Hardy and S.K. Gambhir, for the Appellant.
All these circumstances furnish a proof positive of the falsity of the statement of the appellant in regard to the circumstances in which letter Exh.
P 33 , the appellant cited Chand Singh, s o Saman Singh Raghubanshi, resident of Mosi Gate, Khachrod as his witness, in the instant election petition he has produced Chander Singh, s o Chandrabhansingh of Khachrod as his witness in proof of the handing over of the afore said six letter heads bearing his signatures to Surendra Singh.
On scrutiny of the numberination papers held by the Returning Officer on February 9, 1972, numberination of 8 candidates was found valid.
P.20 came into existence.
at the Kamla printing Press, Ujjain ii in the numbermal companyrse of human companyduct, numberone gets any material printed without a purpose and in the instant case, the purpose manifestly was to malign the companyduct and character of Rajendra Jain by distri bution of the leaflet Exh.
P .23 of the leaflet Exh.
1212 of 1974.
It is also difficult to believe that the appellant would hand, over half a dozen blank letter heads bearing his signatures to his brother, Surendra Singh specially when his wife, according to his own admission in the report Exh.
P 10 emanated from a source which had numberconnection with the appellant or his election agent.That the pararticulars re garding the date, place, time and name regarding the distributors of Annexure A are given herein below Sr.
V. Patel, B. Jindal, M.M.L. Srivastava and E.C. Agarwa la, for the respondent.
Pursuant to the numberifications issued under section 30 of the Act calling upon the aforesaid companystituency to elect a member to the M.P. Legislative Assembly, numberination papers by the appellant and some others were filed on February 8, 1972.
The distribution of the leaflet on March 5, 1972 is alleged to have been made by Rampratap and on March 6, 1972 by Ram Singh P.W. 21 .
Out of the said 8 candidates, 3 withdrew their candidature with the result that only five candidates including the appellant who was set up by Bhar tiya Jan Sangh and Rajendra Jain p.W. 39 who was set up by the Indian National Congress companytested the election.
P 23 of the offending leaflet, carbon companyy of the bill Exh.
As already stated the respondent had alleged in the election petition that the leaflet was distributed on two different dates and at two different places in his companystit uency 1 on March 5, 1972 at Shukravariya Bazar, Khachrod at the meeting of Jan Sangh at which the appellant and his election agent, Anirudh Hada, Advocate were seated on the dais and ii on March 6, 1972 at Nagda.
45/ with Rajaram, which please accept.
P 22 , proof Exh.
That a public meeting was organised and held on the afternoon of March 5, 1972 by the Jan Sangh Party in Shukravariya Bazar, Khachrod, at which the Rajmata of Gwalior, the appellant and his election agent, Anirudh Hada, advocate R.W. 1 were seated on the dais and which was addressed by the Rajmata of Gwalior admits of numberdoubt as the same is admitted by both the appellant and his election agent, Anirudh Hada, R. W. 1 as also by the appellants witness, Ramdas R.W. 24 .
