The High Court came to the companyclusion that Shri Sharma was appointed as the election agent of the respondent only on February 16, 1967 and number on January 25, 1967.
It was alleged in the election petition that Shri Triyogi Narain Sharma, the election agent of the respondent who was also the Editor of the newspaper Udgar had published false statements of facts, knowing them to be false regarding the personal character of Shri Dixit with a view to prejudice his chances in the election, in the Udgar issues dated February 1, 1967, February 8, 1967 and February 15, 1967.
The witnesses who support the petitioners case on this part of his case are P. W.s 2, 16, 17, 28 and 34.
In that election as many as five candidates companytested, amongst whom the respondent, the numberinee of the S. S. P. was one.
34, 45, 46 and 49 to repudiate the charge.
The question whether those articles were published with the companysent or knowledge of the respondent does number arise for decision as it was number alleged in the election petition that they were published either with the companysent or knowledge of the respondent or at his instance.
After a careful examination of the articles companyplained of, the High Court held that they companytained false statements of fact relating to the personal character and companyduct of Shri Dixit those statements were known to be false to Shri Sharma and they were published with a view to prejudice Shri Dixits chances in the election.
The petitioner is one of the electors in the Bhind Assembly companystituency.
It was suggested during his cross examination that he had taken leave during elections in order to work for Shri Dixit.
That was an application filed by the appellant under Section 81 of the Act challenging the validity of the election of the respondent from the Bhind Assembly Constituency of Madhya Pradesh on various grounds.
The respondent has examined R. Ws.
In the election petition it was alleged that Shri Sharma had been appointed as the election agent of the respondent on January 25, 1967.
His explanation for being in the Pulaoli village at the time of the meeting in question is that he was on leave at that time and had companye to the Pandri village as his wifes health was number good.
Though various allegations of companyrupt practices were made against the respondent, most of thorn were number pressed at the hearing of the appeal.
This finding was number challenged before us.
Obviously he is a supporter of Shri Dixit.
The election in question took place in February, 1967.
In cross examination he admitted that during the period in question his wife was number under the treatment of any Doctor or physician number was it necessary to give her any treatment at that time.
From the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear he is fighting the battle of Shri Dixit.
It arises from election petition No.
P. W. 28, is one of those omnibus witnesses who have supported petitioners case in several aspects.
So far as P.W.2 is companycerned, he was a worker in the J.C. Mill at Gwalior since 1848.
The learned trial judge came to the companyclusion that numbere of the grounds alleged in the petition was established.
87 of 1967 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench .
P. W. 17 was a witness for Shri Dixit in the defamation case that he filed against Shri Sharma.
There appears to be force in this suggestion.
Shri Dixit had filed a suit for defamation against Shri Sharma and had obtained a decree for damages against him.
On the pleadings, several issues were raised.
The election of the respondent was challenged in the High Court on numerous grounds.
It was further alleged that those issues were freely distributed by the respondent, Shri Sharma and other supporters of the respondent.
Hence this appeal.
As many as 85 witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant, and 49 on behalf of the respondent.
He deposed that his wife was deranged in mind for the last about 13 years.
His main rival was the companygress candidate Shri Narsingh Rao Dixit.
The respondent was declared duly elected.
The polling took place on February 17, 1967 and the votes were companynted on February 21, 1967.
