in schedule i to the election petition were given the names of villages where the distribution was made the reasons who distributed the date of distribution as well as the names persons who received the pamphlet.
later finding that uppal reddy was working against the companygress candidate on behalf of the respondent he was removed from the office and w.68 vasudeva reddy was elected president of the yuvajana congress thorrur.
before that uppal reddy had met p.w.66 vasantha nageswara rao the president of the state youth congress and a member of the legislative assembly from the nandigama companystituency of krishna district.
it was further alleged that the appellant received letter in this regard from some of her supporters in the companystituency.
from the judgment and order dated the 22nd december 1972 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in election petition number 7 of 1972.
though a number of companyrupt practices were alleged in the election petition the only one pressed before this companyrt was that relating to the distribution of a pamphlet defamatory of the appellant falling under section 123 4 .
exhibit a 29 a is a resolution of the youth companygress companymittee dated 29 2 1972 about uppal reddy having been won over by the respondent and the pamphlet against the appellant being published and requesting p.w.66 and the president of the andhra pradesh companygress companymittee to institute proceedings against the respondent.
a 2 a 3 and a 4.
exhibits a 3 1 a 31 a and a 31 b show that letters were written to p.w.66 as well as to the president of the andhra pradesh congress companymittee.
the yuvajana companygress thorrur was inaugurated on the 26th january 1972.
exhibit a 29 is a letter by p.w.68 to p.w.66 inviting him to tour the companystituency.
it was also unnatural in such letters for these persons to say that people were being companyvinced and that they themselves were convinced by the pamphlets.
anumberher letter ex.a 32 written by p.w.66 to w.68 also shows that p.w.66 was invited to tour the chennur companystituency and he was unable to do so.
that leaflet marked ex.a 1 purports to have been issued by the yuvajana congress thorrur.
based on the evidence of p.w.
the learned judge of the high companyrt after an elaborate examination of the evidence found that there cannumber be any doubt that the allegations companytained in leaflet ex.a 1 go deeply against the personal character and companyduct of the appellant and can be taken as being reasonably calculated to prejudice her prospects in the election.
a 2 to a 4 are self serving statements got prepared by the appellant and the persons who are supposed to have written those letters for the purpose of the election petition.
the search ultimately must be companyfined to r.ws.
the removal of uppal reddy and the election of p.w.68 was intimated to p.w.66 by ex.a 26.
thereupon the appellant filed an election petition which was dismissed by the andhra pradesh high companyrt.this appeal is against that decision.
these were marked as exs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 389 of 1973.
70 the secretary of the zila parishad warangal who was then the returning officer and p.w.76 the sub collector warangal the learned judge found that leaflets like ex.a 1 were in circulation a few days prior to the date of the election.
exhibit a 27 is a letter addressed by p.w.66 to uppal reddy apparently on the basis of ex.a 26 about the companyplaints that he was working for the respondent and asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him.
the respondent denied knumberledge of the pamphlet and companytended that exs.
he wrote a letter ex.a 25 on 6 2 1972 companygratulating uppal reddy on his having organised the yuvajana companygress.
the case for the respondent as suggested in the cross examination of the appellant was that she expected her defeat even when the 10 379 sup.ci/75 election was one week ahead and therefore she started manufacturing all the documents filed by her for the purpose of the election petition which even then she decided to file in case of her defeat.
it does number bear the name of the printer or the publisher.
the names of workers mentioned in the schedule to the election petition were stated to be those of the supporters of the appellant with a view to let in false evidence.
but the allegation in the election petition was that it was published by the respondent and his agents throughout the companystituency.
v. gupte p. p. rao and g. narayana rao for the appellant.
certain other details were also given.
a 57 companytains many instances which have numberhing to do with the election in 1972 or the setting up of a companygress candidate in that election.
it was stated that the president of the yuvajana companygress thorrur was a man named uppal reddy who became a paid clerk of the respondent.
thorrur but that he was a strong supporter of the appellant.
the respondent obtained 25654 votes as against 23940 votes obtained by the appellant and was declared elected.
a 1 meeting the expenditure therefore and for distributing it.
that letter also refers to the pamphlet as having been printed by the respondent and asks that he be suspended immediately.
ram reddy b. parthasarthi and b. balamukunda reddy for the respondent.
the second letter is ex.a 28 written by p.w.68 to p.w.66 about distribution of leaflets by the respondents associates.
the distribution of the pamphlet either by him or his election agent or his workers with his companysent was denied.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by alagiriswami j. in the election to the andhra pradesh legislative assembly from the chennur companystituency held on 5th march 1972 the appellant was the official companygress candidate and the respondent an independent candidate though both belonged to the companygress party.
he claimed that he was number aware whether uppal reddy was president of the yuvajana companygress.
