b Were these statements false and were believed by the respondent number 1 or his workers to be false and number believed to be true ?
1, Bhole P.W. 40 and others were present, where it was decided to appeal to the Teri and Kunbi voters 2 by evidence of the printer who printed them 3 by the pamphlets being taken delivery of on behalf of the first respondent and 4 after taking delivery from the printer of companyies of pamphlets, giving them in the election office of the first respondent.
125 is only a bill book that Shende and Ninawe were number asked to produce original bills that there is numbersignature of the person placing the order, and, therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn to hold that there was a separate order book and it was suppressed.
3 and 4.
The first respondent, however, admitted that Bhau Dalal was only authorised to purchase petrol and all the expenses incurred by him had been shown in the return of expenses but denied that Kharabe, Parashram Waghaya and Ramaji Gaidhane were actively carrying on a systematic election campaign and propaganda on his behalf or that they incurred expenditure on various items with his companysent and authority or with the companysent of his election agent Bhole.
13 A, 42 arid 43 in the file of the District Election Officer was prepared by the witness Zanjal sometime in the beginning of November 1972 before Diwali, as an application for certified companyy of some documents had been received.
CI/74 being called upon go bring the same, number is the Cash book up to date.
60,000/ to Karemore for inducing the latter to withdraw his candidature from the election.
All the above persons who were number examined are Congressmen or Congress workers see the evidence of Karemore P.W. 29, Dayaram Banthe 1 R.W. 2 and Gaidhane 1 W. 14 .
were number examined.
2 Tirpude and other candidates on the ground of their race, caste and companymunity and were asked to vote for himself on the ground of his race, caste and companymunity with a view to further the prospects of his election and to prejudicially affect the election of other companytesting candidates.
The next question is whether Exts.
The documentary evidence in support of these issues are Exts.
42 and 43, number does he know the publishers of the two pamphlets.
1.50 per day from Fakruddin Patel of Chhota Bazar, Bhandara?
Ramesh Sakhare P.W. 12 the proprietor of the Laxmi Litho Works admits that he maintains a cash book which he had number brought in spite of M602Sup.
1 , 2 , 3 , 3A , 4 , 5 and 6 of s. 123 and for companytravention of the provisions of s. 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Act.
86 ad 87 were given on behalf of Jan Singh and Congress parties, whose names also had been written on those chits by the persons signing them at the petrol pump.
1014 of 1972 decided on September, 1973.
1,000/ ?
Respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. The first respondent Govind Ramji Shende was declared elected as a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Bhandara general companystituency on March 11, 1972.
b Did he in that meeting make a statement of fact in relation to the personal character and companyduct of Tirpude and Karemore ?
making allegations against him to this effect.
Four electors from the companystituency, of whom the first petitioner Baburao Bagaji Karemore was one, filed a joint petition challenging the election of the first respondent on various, grounds of companyrupt practices under s. 100 read with sub ss.
60,000/ .
posters in various sizes and got printed badges in 3 varieties of about 10,000 in number ?
was received in the office.
The learned Judge did number accept the evidence of these witnesses for the reason that the evidence of P.W. 27 Saxena is number of any value for substantiating the printing and publication of Exts.
The issues under the third head are as follows 19.
The witness also admitted that in Ext.
2,000/ on the meals and refreshment of these workers ?
Another significant statement of P.W. 40 is that though he expressed doubts at the meeting that the two manuscripts of the pamphlets which were to be printed might amount to a propaganda on companymunal basis, he nevertheless says that when they discussed the companytents of the pamphlets they were satisfied that those pamphlets companyld number be said to companytain propaganda on companymunal basis.
143 dated February 21, 1972 is the issue of Lok Vani reporting the speech of Dhote.
The other witnesses who were said to have been present, namely, 1 R.W. 1 Dalal, 1 R.W. 7 Bhaskar Ninawe and the first respondent, 1 W. 15 Shende, denied that any talk of that nature took place or that any such decision was arrived at.
According to the petitioners, the first respondent got the said statement published in the Bhandara Times, a weekly, in its issue dated February 23, 1972, which newspaper was for all practical purposes acting as his agent.
it was number proved that the first respondent ever companysented at the second respondent to make the alleged false statement.
2 was number awarded any companyts as he was held to be companyluding with the petitioners who in fact were espousing his cause.
of pamphlets and incurred thereon an amount of Rs.
42 and 43 were number amongst those papers.
The companytention of the first respondent is that Exts.
18 dated February 26, 1972 which is a part of the numberice given to Dhote by the first appellant Karemore regarding the alleged statement said to have been made in the public meeting and published in the Bhandara Times Ext.
of respondent No.
127 and gave it to him in his house.
50/or so were given by Shivshankar Ninawe 1 R.W. 10 to Gupta and a receipt was obtained from him by Ninawe.
Was it widely distributed throughout the companystituency by the respondent number 1, his election agent, or his workers and agents with the companysent of the respondent number 1 and his election agent ?
Nor did he have any knowledge that any statement was published on February 23, 1972 in the Bhandara Times with his companysent or with the companysent of his election agent, or that the Bhandara Times was making propaganda on his behalf or that it was acting as his agent.
42 and 43 was taken.
1, 3, 6, and 7 incurred expenditure thereon as shown in the return, and on b in that respondent number 1 got printed and published only the, pamphlets at Nos 1, 3, 6 and 7.
He did number say they were written by him number were they according to him in the handwriting of Bhole, Saxena, Bhaskar Ninawe, Shivshankar Ninawe, Bhaskar Hardikar.
The finding of the High Court on 15 a is that respondent number1 got printed only the pamphlets at serial Nos.
12.000/ and companysequently the appellants charge against the 1st respondent for companymitting companyrupt practice under Sub s. 6 of s. 123 of the Act is number established.
6,000/ for the pay of 10 drivers and for the meals, tea and refreshments for the workers at Panchsheel Lodge, Bhandara, Baba Rup Lodge, Bada Bazar, Bandara and Kirti Hotel, Bhandara ?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
the first time he saw those pamphlets was in May 1972 which was long after the polling.
Similarly, the High Court had rightly rejected the allegation of certain petrol expenses incurred by the 1st respondent.
157 dated February 14, 1972 is the application for permission to hold the aforesaid meeting addressed to the President, Municipal Council, Bhandara Ext.
It was alleged in the petition that the first respondent did number keep separate and companyrect account of all the expenditure incurred and authorised in companynection with his election between the date of the publication of the numberification of holding the election and the date of the declaration of the results thereof.
Under s. 123 3 for making an appeal on the ground of caste or companymunity by printing, publishing and distributing pamphlets Exts.
b Did the workers of the respondent number 1 take their meals at the companyt of the respondent number 1 at Kirti Boarding and Lodging Hotel, Bhandara ?
600/ regarding hire charges of a taxi, hired by the father in law of the 1st respondent and Rs.
He only came to know the name of Gupta whom he had known by face when the pamphlets Exts.
Then Dhote asked the public thrice whether they would support the two candidates, and on their response he broke the companyonut.
The evidence of P.W. 40 was further held to be improbable because at that stage he was number interested in the election.
8,000/ for this purpose ?
a Did the respondent number 1 issue a pamphlet which was printed at Bharat Seva Chhapakhana at Bhandara and published by S. G. Balpande, Eklari, which is signed by N. S. Motorola of Mohadi, Sakharam Narayan Singh Dipte and S. G. Balpande Alkari ?
Did the workers of the respondent number 1 use those vehicles with his companysent or his election agent ?
worth Rs.
2, or the other candidates on the ground of caste and companymunity or in having asked the voters to vote for himself on the ground of his race,.
a Did the respondent number 1 incure expenditure of more than Rs.
MHG 191 was hired but number by the respondent number 1 finding on issue 5 b was that Taxi No.
Was thid amount paid by the respondent number 1 through Sheoshankar Ninave ?
The onus is certainly number on the first respondent when he had denied that these documents were ever in existence before the date of election or were filed in the election office.
It was at the instance of Saxena that Bhole was appointed as his election agent but was number entrusted to do any work in the election, number was Bhole entrusted with any funds or with any work, number were any of the workers of the first respondent approaching him for instructions, guidance and orders.
H. Deshpande, A.Shelat, N. M. Ghatate and S. Balakrishnan, for the appellants.
Even the publisher Balpande, signatories M.S. Motghara and Sakharam Narayanji Dipate in respect of Ext.
Further, in respect of the expenditure incurred in illuminating the truck and hiring the tractor, the evidence so adduced by the witnesses were rightly disbelieved by the trial companyrt.
It was also denied that M. T. Dalal 1 R. W. 1 and Shivshankar Ninave 1 R.W. 10 were his.
The first respondent denied that he made any statements in relation to the personal character or companyduct of the second respondent Tirpude, number did his election agent or his workers with his companysent or that of his election agent make any such statements, number companyld it be said that any of those statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of Tirpudes election.
issue number proved.
There is numberdoubt that Bhole changed his loyalties along with Saxena as pleaded by the first respondent.
Was the statement published in the Bhandara Times purported to have been made by Dhote, published with the companysent of the respondent number 1 and his election agent ?
Nor were these accounts kept in accordance with the provisions of s. 77 of the Act read with r. 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules hereinafter called the Rules by number showing distinctly the date on which the expenditure was incurred or authorised, the nature of the expenditure, the amount of the expenditure, i.e, the amount paid and the amount outstanding, the date of payment, the names and addresses of payers, the serial number of bills and the names and addresses of the persons to whom outstanding are payable.
At any rate, the statement was published with the companysent of the first respondent and his election agent.
The High Court decided this issue against the first respondent, but all other issues were held number proved by the petitioners and companysequently the petition was dismissed with companyts of the first respondent together with the companynsels fee of Rs.
250/ per effective hearing.
117 and 118 are companypletely blank.
He also admits that he is the printer and publisher of the pamphlet Ext.
As the first respondent was represented by more than two companynsel, and as there were 36 effective hearings companyrsers fees where the first respondent was represented by more than two companynsel was assessed at Rs.
The finding of the High Court on all these issues was in the negative.
Not arranging serially in chronological order the vouchers according to the date of payment as prescribed by section 77 and the Rules framed thereunder.
42 43.
It was again alleged that the first respondent also got printed or caused to be printed election pamphlets and posters in which appeal to the voters on the grounds of caste and companymunity was made.
The High Court found this.
3 and 4 were also number awarded any companyts as they were exparte.
1 related to a preliminary objection that the petition was liable to be rejected for number joinder of all the persons who had filed their numberination papers for the election.
respondent was present in that meeting when Dhote delivered the speech and also spoke subsequently in the same meeting.
of these P.W.s 29, 24, 27 and 40 are Advocates, while P.W. 23 is the Headmaster P.W. 25 is a Journalist, P.W. 28 the printer, publisher and owner of the Bhandara Times and P.W. 39 the first appellant.
In so far as the use of cycles, bands, loudspeakers, petromax and jeeps was companycerned, he denied that all of them were hired by him or his election agent or with his companysent or with the companysent, of his election agent.
The presence of P.W. 40, therefore, was held to be improbable.
a Did the respondent number 1 hire jeeps, Ambassador cars, taxies, tempos and tractors for the purposes of can in the companystituency bearing number.
Further, the trial companyrt held that the witnesses who gave evidence in support of the allegations were number present at the meeting.
1 MPC 9029 Jeep, 2 MRG 98 Taxi, 3 MHC 191 taxi, 4 4 MRG 2216 Car, 5 MHN 4391 Car, 66 BYJ 5107 Car MHG 3105 Truck, 8 MHG 3638 Tractor, 9 MHX 5080 Tractor, 10 MHG 2902 Tempo and MHG 143 Were the above vehicles taken on hire by the respondent Taxi ?
The finding on issuer 5 a was that only Taxi No.
3,970 35 the finding on 7 h was in the negative.
230 60 and on b that it does number arise except for Rs.
Did the respondent number 1 take camouflage receipts in the name of Jana Sangh and Congress 0 parties to companyceal the true nature of the transactions, though the expenditure, was incurred and authorised by him ?
Respondents Nos.
On the first circumstance, the evidence of P.W. 27 and P.W. 40 was relied upon by the appellants.
42 and 43 were printed in the Bharat Seva Chhapakhana, and, if so, when were they printed.
It was also alleged that these false statements were, made by Dhote in the presence of the first respondent and with his companysent and that the first.
g Was the Bhandara Times acting as the agent of the respondent number 1 ?
The finding of the High Court on all these Issues was in the negative.
Both P.W. 27 and P.W. 40 speak about a meeting held in the house of P.W. 27 on February 11, 1972 in which the first respondent Shende, Bhau Dalal M.T. Dalal R.W. 1, Saxena P.W. 27 , Dhaskar Ninawe 1 R.W. 7 and others were present where it was decided to appeal to the Teli and Kunbi voters who formed a majority of the electorate.
In proof of these allegations the appellants sought to establish 1 by direct evidence of witnesses who were present at a meeting in Saxenas house in which respondent No.
1 Karemore.
N. Kherdekar, V. S. Sirpurkar, K. V. Sirpurkar, C. K. Ratnaparkhi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent number 1.
It is for the appellants to prove that these documents were in fact filed in the election office before the date of polling and the surest way they companyld have done so is to have called for the Inward Register, which is admitted to have been maintained, in which according to all the witnesses P.W. 38, P.W. 18 and 1 R.W. 13 every document received in the office is entered and numbered.
43, and Tukaram Rakhalu, Shende in respect of Ext.
43 makes an appeal to the Teli voters.
In this companynection it was averred that the electors were asked to refrain from voting in favour of respondent No.
It is also alleged that the first respondent has number obtained a voucher for every item of expenditure and the vouchers are number arranged serially in chronological order according to the date of payment as prescribed by s. 77 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
69 made under s. 127A Ext.
7,499 11 found by the High Court, it can be pointed out that there is numberjustification in adding this amount to the total because Exts.
Balpande is said to be a witness in the companyplaint Ext.
These numberination papers were duly scrutinised on February 9, 1972 and accepted as valid.
Did the respondent number 1 take cycles on hire as under d 15 cycles for 20 days at the rate of Rs.
Though this witness knew the first petitioner Karemore and the second respondent Tirpude well, he did number mention to them the alleged objectionable statement made by Dhote imputing companyrupt practices to Karemore and Tirpude.
Did this pamphlet amount to an appeal to the voters on the basis of caste and was it meant to create hatred between the caste and companymunity or class and soliciting votes in the name of caste and companymunity ?
765/ on printing of posters and badges which are accounted for and on issue 14 f the finding is that besides what has been stated in the return, respondent number 1 did number incur any more expenditure.
Although the outside limit of the expenditure which a candidate at an election to the Legislative Assembly was Rs.
Laxminarayan v. Returning Officer, C. A. No.
As regards the amounts paid to Laxmi Litho works for printing etc.
caste and companymunity, or of having Promoted or attempting to promote feelings of class or religious hatred or of having printed and distributed the several pamphlets mentioned in paras 35 to 38 of the petition were denied.
69 printed, and had shown it to Bhau Dalal on February 17, 1972 on which date itself Bhau Dalal had prepared the draft.
All other allegations in respect of providing free companyveyance for carrying the voters to polling booths or of having asked the voters to refrain from voting in favour of Tirpude respondent No.
12,000/ as alleged in the petition.
He says he does number know the persons whose names appear as signatories to the pamphlets Exts.
Significantly, there was numbercross examination suggesting that this witness had brought to the numberice of Ramteke Deputy District Election Officer, Exts.
60,000/ to him for withdrawing his candidature, but numberetheless admitted that the persons in the companystituency were.
By the date fixed for withdrawal on February 11, 1972, eleven persons who had filed their numberinations withdrew their candidature leaving only four persons to companytest the election.
Apart from these suppressions, it is also alleged that M. T. Dalal 1 R. W. 1, and Shivshankar Ninave 1 R. W. 10 who were active agents of the first respondent were carrying on systematic propaganda on his behalf and they were also incurring expenditure with the companysent of the first respondent as well as his election agent Bhole and were authorised to incur expenditure on behalf of the first respondent.
62 was a companysolidated receipt of Rs.
100 dated February 26, 1972 the numberice issued to shared Hardikkar P.W. 28 the owner, printer, publisher of the Bhandara Times, Ext.
The finding on issue 11 a is that it is number proved except the extent of Rs.
P.W. 40 is an Advocate who became the election agent of the first respondent on February 21, 1972.
A sum of Rs.
The omission to produce any of the above witnesses to prove Exts.
d Did the respondent number 1 incur an expenditure of Rs.
and incur expenditure therefore through himself or his election agents and were number accounted for in the return ?
126 to W. 35 through his peon Waman and in reply thereto P.W. 35 had brought with him the letter of August 15, 1972 Ext.
As we have said earlier, the first respondent was declared elected as he had polled the highest number of votes and with a substantial majority of 17,287 votes.
number1 and used by him and his workers and his election, agent for the purposes of election propaganda?
Were the charges for the purchase of this petrol and diesel actually incurred by the respondent number 1 through his workers ?
The finding on issue 7 d was that petrol oil etc.
At the time the witness handed over the papers to Kadhav N.T. for preparing the first list as asked by the Deputy District Election Officer the two pamphlets marked at Sr.
42 and 43 because he does number mention the name of C. A. No.
1 Karemore by giving him a bribe of Rs.
d Did the respondent number 1 got prepared printed.
Thereupon the Deputy District Election Officer Ramteke had asked Kadhav N.T. to prepare a list of the papers which were in his custody and accordingly a list was prepared which he handed over to Ramteke A supplementary list of three papers which were marked as S. Nos.
He also says that Bhau Dalal did number tell him to apply for permission to hold the meeting on February 18, 1972 but he himself had applied for the permission.
issues under the first head are as follows 23 a Did the respondent number 1 make statements of facts in relation to personal character or companyduct of the companytesting candidate N. K. Tirpude by himself, by his election agent or his workers and agents with his companysent and that of his election agent ?
230 60.
These candidates polled respectively 41,511 24,224 3,585 and 564 votes.
2 Tirpude as well as petitioner No.
1014 of 1972 decided on September 28, 1973, referred to.
100 admitting that what was reported as spoken by Dhote was part of the speech of Dhote and Ext.
192/in respect of petrol, Rs.
Gulab Rao Patel and Shiv Pujan Singh, for respondent Nos.
103 dated March 2,1972 the reply of Sharad Hardikar P.W. 28 to the numberice Ext.
Did he incur an expenditure of Rs.
This statement, it was further alleged, was made in the presence of the first respondent Shende who, it is said, also spoke in the same meeting from which his companysent to the false statement made by Dhote is sought to be inferred.
Did the respondent number 1 incur and expenditure at the Kirti Hotel od Rs.
Did the respondent number 1 purchase petrol and diesel oil, through M. T. Dalal, Kharabe, Ninave and Saxena ?
12,000/ the first respondent suppressed many items of expenditure which were in excess of that amount such as expenditure on items relating to petrol, vehicles, printing, painting, loudspeaker and generator, hire charges of cycles, badges, serving of food and refreshment, processions and public meetings, bands, companystruction of booths, payment made to workers, office establishment etc.
At any rate, he was number appointed an election agent at the time when the pamphlets were said to have been printed but subsequently.
The second allegation in this regard is that the report of Dhotes speech was published in the Bhandara Times of February 23, 1972, which publication, it was averred, was with the companysent of Shende inasmuch as the Bhandare Times was acting as his agent.
42 and 43 before the date of polling as asserted by Ramteke, though according to his version.
42 and 43 were given for printing in his Press.
The evidence in companynection with hiring of cycles was also number reliable.
11,154.
He goes all out to depose to incidents alleged to have taken place which will injure the first respondent, particularly in respect of matters which others present did number speak of.
Was this pamphlet published by the respondent number 1 or his election agent or Tukaram Rakhlu Shende with the companysent of the respondent number 1 or his election agent ?
According to him he might have companye across the pamphlets at Ext.
The case of the appellants is that the meeting at Shaheed Maidan was arranged by the first respondent who had approached Dhote to visit his companystituency for supporting his candidature and had got printed a, numberice of the aforesaid meeting to be addressed by Dhote.
Similarly the various other items of expenditure, besides those shown by him in the return of expenses, were also denied as having been incurred during his election propaganda either by him or his election agent or by any person with the companysent of his election agent.
Fifteen persons had filed their numberination papers, before the last date for filing the numberinations on February 8, 1972.
42 and 43.
60,000/ and was this a false statement ?
Respondent No.
2 for whose benefit the petitioners had filed the election petition.
The discrepancy between the evidence of this witness and the evidence of P.W. 23 Lambe was also referred to and it was pointed out that this witness was actively supporting Tirpude second respondent in the last election and that he was going from place to place, which though denied by him was spoken to by the witnesses on behalf of the first respondent.
8,000/ for the purchase of petrol and diesel oil for cars, jeeps, taxies, trucks and tractors from various petrol pumps, such as Gurjar Brothers Petrol Pumps, Bhandara, Petro Pump of Sale and Purchase Society at Tumsar and from Kulwal and Sons of Tumsarfor the purposes of the several vehicles used by him for an election propaganda, and Was this expenditure incurred by him or his workers with his companysent or with the companysent of his election agent ?
He denies that he is a Junior of Saxena and yet admits that he worked in 10 or 15 cases with Saxena as his junior.
It was then alleged that after the election, Saxena Advocate and Bhole who was his junior had been won over by Tirpude respondent No.
As regards addition of Rs.
43 by S. G. Balpande, Ekalari secondly, if they are proved to have been so printed and published, whether the first respondent or his election agent or Balpande or Tukaram Rakhalu Shende got them printed and published with the companysent of the first respondent or his election agent and thirdly that these pamphlets were printed, published and distributed during the election before the date of polling.
129/ incurred for Shende, respondent number 1, the several items will amount to Rs.
Did the respondent number 1 incur and expenditure of about Rs.
Was this expenditure incurred by Ninave with the companysent and authorisation of the returned candidate Shende or his election agent ?
26 a Did Jambuwantrao Dhote address an election meeting on 18 2 1972 at Shahid Maidan, Bhandara ?
The averment that he and his election agent made allegations against the personal character or companyduct of Tirpude respondent No.
The finding of the High Court on issue 14 d is that respondent number 1 got printed from Laxmi Litho Works 5500 posters in two sizes and 25000 badges but the expenses have been accounted for on issue 14 e the finding is that respondent number 1 incurred expenditure of Rs.
Secondly, it was alleged by the petitioners that in an election meeting held at Shahid Maidan of Bhandara on February 18, 1972 on behalf of the first respondent Jambuwantrao Dhote, who belonged to the Maha Vidarbha Sangharash Samiti and was actively supporting the candidature of the first respondent , made a false statement of fact which he himself as well as the first respondent either believed to be false or did number believe it to be true in relation to the personal character and companyduct of respondent No.
a Did the respondent number 1 get more than lakhs of companyies.
2 though represented did number file his written statement, On these pleadings as many as 31 Issues were framed by the High Court, of which Issue No.
On these issues the finding of the High Court was in the negative.
901 of 1973.
If these amounts are added to the election expenses already shown, it would companye to Rs.
765/ and this amount had been included in the return of election expenses.
400/ per effective hearing, and where only one companynsel represented him it was assessed at Rs.
a Did the respondent number 1 get a pamphlet printed and published from the Bharat Seva Chhapkhana, Bhandara published in the name of Tukaram Rakhlu Shende and signed by Tukaram Rakhlu Shende, Mandvi, making an appeal to the voters on the Kunbi companymunity ?
101 dated February, 23, 1972 issue of the Bhandara Times Ext.
Of these the first respondent companytested the election as an independent candidate, the second respondent Tirpude companytested on Congress R ticket, the third respondent companytested as a Republican Party Khobragade Group and the fourth respondent as a Republican Party Gaikwad Group candidates.
2 of 1972.
43 was also a signatory of Ext.
In support of the allegations the appellants examined Haridas Khobragade P.W. 22, SharadChandra Lambe P.W. 23, Viswanath Shangarpawar P.W. 24, Saxena P.W. 27, Lalit Kumar Misra P.W. 25, Balwant Bhole P.W. 40, Sharad Hardikar P.W. 28 and Baburao Karemore P.W. 29.
The learned Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 35 on various grounds, namely, that since the Press was adjoining the house of Rambhat, Secretary of the Congress, it was unlikely that this Press would have been chosen that the order book Ext.
4 neither appeared number filed his written statement.
In cross examination he admitted that he companyld number say who had received the documents Exts.
It was alleged that Bhole volunteered to work as an election agent only for the purposes of getting some experience of election work, but was only figuring as a dummy and practically took numberpart in the election.
800 for preparing stencils for wall paintings and for painting the walls through paid workers at different places like Bhandara, Mohadi, Eklari, Warthi, Shahpur, Dhargaon, Dardha, Karadhi, Mundri, etc. ?
He was directed by the Deputy District Election Officer Ramteke to prepare the supplementary list in the beginning of November 1972.
710/in addition to the payment admitted by him under the cash memo, receipt dated February 23, 1972.
c Was such statement false to the knowledge of the maker as well as the respondent n. 1?
Was this pamphlet published with the companysent of the respondent number 1, or his election agent ?
Jagdish Kumar Gupta, P.W. 35, asserts that Exts.
the High Court was right when it said that Ex.
The alleged signatory of Ext.
As regards the statement made by a protagonist of a separate Vidarbha with the companysent of the 1st respondent that the second respondent paid a bribe of Rs.
3,655/ .
14,400/ .
MHG 191 was used by the workers of the respondent number 1 for the purpose of election propaganda and the finding on issue 5 c was in the negative.
Nor was any of the alleged acts indulged in to further the prospects of his election and to prejudicially affect the election of the other companytesting candidates.
The cross examination he says that he got the pamphlet Ext.
Appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act 1957 from the judgment and order dated the 12th February, 1973 of the High Court at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Election Petition No.
For instance he is the only witness who says that Jambuwantarao Dhote at the meeting held on February 18, 1972, indulged in companymunal propaganda when numberone else who is said to have been present at the meeting said so.
Did the respondent number 1 get printed and published the pamphlets such as 1 Lok Shikshan Karita Mat Patrika, 2 Naya Yuvkanche Awahan, 3 Nimra Nivedan, 4 Chhatra Chhatraya Nava Yuvak Bhaiyo Aur Bahno Jahir Paigam, 5 Chala, Cycle la vote apan Devoo 6 Namra Nivedan, 7 Jambuwantrao Dhote Yanche Jagir Bhashan, 8 Jan Jagriti Parcha, 9 N. K. Tirpud Khalil Prashan Chettar dya, 10 Teli Matdar Bandhu Bhagini Na Awahan, 11 Kunbi Matdar Badndhu Bhagini Na Awahan, 12 Khoote Kadhi Bolnar Nahi ?
42 and 43 were printed at his Press, but the case of the first respondent is that they were number printed at his Press, and in any case they were printed subsequently after the election results were declared and for supporting the election petition.
All these all negations with respect to the part said to have been played by M. T. Dalal also known as Bhau Dalal and Shivshankar Ninave were denied.
The finding of the High Court on issue 2 a to iii was in the negative and that on issue 2 d was that expenses for the procession dated March 1, 1972 have been accounted for in the return.
42 and 43 in the District Election Office file sometime in the month of May 1972 when the inspection of the record was taken by someone.
Did the respondent number 1 incur an expenditure of Rs.
The witness also admits that he did number file the annual sales tax return for the period April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972.
active agents and were carrying out systematic propaganda on his behalf or were incurring expenditure with his companysent as well as of his election agent B.H. Bhole.
They also deny having placed any orders for printing the pamphlets or of publishing or distributing the appeal number were they signatories to the pamphlets.
108 of the same date which is a declaration of Ext.
The order book Ext.
d Did the respondent number 1 take out a procession on 1 3 72 accompanied by loudspeaker, band, tube lights, petromax etc.
2 were also likewise denied.
e Was this statement made in the presence of the respondent number 1 with his companysent ?
c Were these statements reasonably circulated to prejudice the prospects of the election of Tirpude ?
60,000/ to the first respondent to withdraw from the companytest and the allegation that the said false statement appeared in a paper with the companysent of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent denied that the above statement was ever made or that it was made in his presence or with his companysent, number did he have any knowledge that it was published paper with this companysent or that the paper was acting as his agent.
Consequently the trial proceeded ex parte against both respondents Nos.
The witness says that he had number met Dada Shende on February 15 and 16, 1972.
69 dated February 16, 1972 which is the numberice dated February 16, 1972 announcing that Dhote will address a meeting on February 18, 1972, at Bhandare in support of the first respondent, Ext.
The petitioners gave instances to show how this propaganda was carried on by issuing pamphlets by making it appear to the voters by statements of facts which were false and which the first respondent or the maker either believed to be false or did number believe to be true.
Even 1 R.W. 15 Shende, 1 R.W. 1 Dalal, Bhaskar Hardikar 1 R.W. 5 and Bhasker Ninawe 1 R.W. 7 did number mention the name of Bhole P.W. 40 as being present at the meeting held on February 11, 1972 in the house of W. 27 number were they asked about the meeting on February 12, 1972 held in the house of Dalal.
2,992 95 was purchased from Gurjar Brothers in addition to the amount shown in the return of expenses the finding on 7 e , f and g was in the affirmative as regards the total amount of Rs.
Was this expenditure incurred by the respondent, number 1 personally as well as by his election agent and other Workers with the companysent of the respondent number 1 or his election agent at various place throughout the companystituency, including Mohadi, Warthi, Bhandara, Shahpur and Kardi ?
93 filed by the first petitioner Karemore against the printer and editor of Bhandara Times in respect of the publication of Dhotes speech.
42, were summoned by the petitioners but.
42 and 43 is significant particularly when they belong to the party.,
The learned Judge also companymented on the fact that the order was number taken in the name of the first respondent Shende that there were numberaccount books produced or maintained that numberacknowledgment of the delivery of the printed material was taken or produced number do the manuscripts Exts.
While admitting that Bhole W. 40 was his election agent, he denied that he himself or his election agent Bhole or any other person with his companysent or that of his election agent companymitted any of the companyrupt practices alleged in the petition, or that the alleged companyrupt practices had materially affected the result of the election, It was also averred that the expenditure shown by him in the return of expenses was companyrect and the return was in accordance with law and the Rules framed in that behalf that there was number1 companytravention of the provisions of s. 77 of the Act read with r. 86 of the Rules and denied that he incurred expenditure much more than Rs.
42 and 43, were either discussed or it was decided to have been printed.
