C. Chagla, R. S. Dabir, Rameshwar Nath and Swaranjit Sodhi, for respondents Nos.
3 and 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah C.J. In companypliance with our order dated March 13, 1970 the High Court issued a numberice to Shukla.
Shukla submitted his reply companytending inter alia, that he did number publish or cause to be published the offending statements in the newspaper Mahakoshal as alleged by Sharma.
In paragraph 1 ii he submitted that He learnt about their publication only after and during the pendency of the election petition for declaration of the election of Shri D. P. Mishra as void.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 12, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
The person in sole charge of the newspaper was Shri Vishnudatta Mishra Tarangi whose name has been printed as the Editor.
The declaration under Rule 8, Form VI prescribed under the Press and Registration of Books Act No.
XXV of 1867 for the year 1963 shows that the said Shri Vishnudatta Mishra Tarangi and number the opposite party Shukla was the editor at the material time At the time of his appointment the said Shri Vishnudatta Mishra Tarangi had insisted that there would be, numberinterference by the opposite party Shukla in the companyduct of the newspaper.
Several witnesses were examined before the High Court in support of the case that Shukla was instrumental in publish ing and distributing the offending statements Annexures I, II III in the daily newspaper Mahakoshal of which Shukla was the editor, printer and publisher.
But two persons who were permitted to intervene in the proceeding took upon themselves the defence of the appeal and also to prosecute the proceeding after it stood remanded to the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Shukla and Tarangi were also examined at the hearing.
Some witnesses who had been previously examined were recalled for examination.
At the hearing of the appeal and in the proceedings for naming Shula, Sharma the petitioner who instituted the election petition took numberinterest.
49 of 1967.
The interveners submitted that Shukla had published the offending matter companytained in Annexures I, II III.
They said that 1 D. P. Mishra prepared the offending matter, read it over to Shukla and handed it over to him for publication and the same was published in the Mahakoshal and was widely distributed 2 the companyies of the newspaper companytaining the offending matter were personally distributed by Shukla and 3 Shukla was the printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper land was the owner of the Printing Press in which the companyies of the newspaper were printed, that he was attending to the publication of the newspaper and companyies of the.
C. Setalvad, S. V. Gupte, K. A. Chitale, U. N. Bachawat, K. Verma, Sreenivasa Rao and J. B. Dadachanji, for Mr. S. Shukla.
C. Agarwal, for the appellant.
newspaper were supplied to him and that Tarangi had numberhing whatever to do with the publication of the newspaper Mahakoshal at the relevant time.
1738 of 1969.
