The statements attributed to respondent 1, said to have been made by him in the meetings of the 3rd and 6th March, 1972 and in the pamphlet Panch Khas Baten are more or less on the same pattern.
Apart from the question whether respondent No.
Respondent 1 is alleged to have stated in the meeting that the appellant did number believe in the principles for which his party stood, that he looked down upon the Harijans, treated them as untouchables, that his brother was involved in a companymunal riot in Suker was for which he was prosecuted and that the appellants companyworker, Ramnath Gandhi Sewak, was also companymunal minded.
Apart from himself the appellant examined Habib Khan P.W. 7 , Mankhan P.W. 8 , Devlal P.W. 9 and Ramnath Gandhi Sewak P.W. 14 in support of his case that respondent 1 made a derogatory speech on March 2, 1972 at the Purana Motor Stand, Nasrullaganj, and that the pamphlet Alma Ki Pukar was distributed at the meeting.
1 did make the particular statement and assuming that he did so, it would appear that in view of the antecedents of the appellant, respondent No.
This appeal is directed against that judgment.
That on the 3rd and 6ih March, 1972 respondent 1 delivered similar speeches and on the 3rd March he published a pamphlet under the title Panch Khas Baten, attacking the appellants personal character and companyduct.
That immediately after respondent 1 finished his speech in the, aforesaid meeting, his agents and supporters distributed a booklet called Atma Ki Pukar which companytained aspersions against the personal character of the appellant.
1 bad reason to believe that the statements were true.
The High Court framed 19 effective issues out of which issues 1 to 7 and 10 to 14 are pressed before us.
The High Court has recorded a finding that the booklet Atma ki Pukar was distributed by respondent 1 and his agents but it is clear from the evidence that the offending portion of that publication was a mere reproduction of what was stated in a memorandum submitted by Motilal Patel to the Congress High Command.
Respondent 1 was amongst those three but the Provincial Congress Committee added the name of the petitioner to the list.
Banvirsingh Chatak who was examined as a companyrt witness admitted that he companyposed the booklet partly on the basis of his personal knowledge and partly on the basis of what was stated in the memorandum submitted by Motilal Patel to the Congress High Command.
R 9 is a certified companyy of the proceedings of the Vidhan Sabha dated July 31, 1972 which shows that in answer to a question, the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh stated that by an audit report the appellant was charged with having companymitted numerous irregularities and misappropriation of public funds, that an inquiry was held into those charges and that necessary action was being taken on the inquiry report.
Motilal Patel says that the imputations which he made against the appellant were true to his personal knowledge and that every one companycerned knew the whole truth.
The appellant admitted in his evidence that a criminal case under Sections 353 and 332 of the Penal Code was pending against him in companynection with an assault on a police companystable, that a shopkeeper had filed a criminal companyplaint against him under Section 427 of the Penal Code and that an inquiry was being held against him by a Tehsildar on the charge that he embezzled public funds while he was the President of the Salkanpur Trust from 1966 to 1969 At Ex.
Motilal Patel has stated in his evidence that he drafted a petition companyplaining against the appellant and distributed the companyies thereof to the members of the All India Congress Committee.
In fact, Binder P.W. 10 , who is a Harijan, did number fully support the case of the appellant in regard to the statements said to have been made by respondent 1 in the meeting.
In so far as relevant, the appellant challenged respondent 1s election on the following grounds That in a meeting held on March 2, 1972 which was largely attended by voters belonging to the Harijan and Muslim companymunities, respondent 1 made a speech assailing the personal character of the appellant in regard, particularly, to his attitude to the Harijans.
He was President of the Block Tehsil Congress Committee of Nasrullaganj from 1967 to 1972 He has stated in his evidence that respondent 1 did number make any of the statements attributed to him and that numberpamphlet was distributed during or at the end of the meeting.
The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent 1 but that petition was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court by a judgment dated July 3, 1973.
Respondent 1 admitted that he had addressed an election meeting on the particular day at Nasrullaganj but he denied that he had made the statements attributed to him or that any pamphlet was distributed at the meeting.
V. Chandrachud, J. In the elections held to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1972, respondent I who companytested as an independent candidate defeated the appellant, a Congress R candidate, by a margin of 2600 votes.
It is significant that the version of respondent 1 is companyroborated by Motilal Patel R.W. 2 who is a member of the Congress R and who held various offices in the organisation from time to time.
The Block Congress Committee of Nasrullaganj had recommended three names for Congress candidature from the Budni companystituency.
