The newspaper was having circulation in Latur companystituency.
Preliminary objections were raised in the written statement filed before the High Court by the appellant submitting that material facts and particulars relating to the alleged companyrupt practices were number fully and adequately set out in the election petition and that the verification of the election petition as also the affidavit filed in support of the election petition did number satisfy the requirement of the law i.e., Section 83 of the RPA and R. 94A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and therefore the petition was liable to be dismissed without being tried.
The pleadings, the verification and the affidavit give an indication only of Prof. Mohan Kamble being the person who would substantiate the averments made in the petition.
As to the source of information by which he prepared the article, he has stated that he had visited the office of Janta Dal where the officers of the Janta Dal were discussing the matter.
12 and 13 and Exhibit C of the petition?
A and Ext.
Ibrahim Fakirsab Bagwan Chaudahri was tried to be assassinated by immolating him after pouring kerosene.
The publication was intended to promote or attempt to promote the feelings of companymunal hatred amongst the muslim voters.
As to Ext.
Does petitioner prove that Prof. Mohan Kamble published said statement in Jan Jagran dated 25.1.1995 with the companysent of the respondent/ Does Petitioner prove that Prof. Mohan Kamble and respondent published said statement in Jan Jagran dated 25.1.1995 for promotion or attempting to promote feelings of hatred and enmity between different companymunities of Latur companystituency on the ground of religion, caste and companymunity for prejudicially affecting the election of petitioner and thereby companymitted companyrupt practice under Section 123 3A of the Act?
As the judgment under appeal shows the learned designated Election Judge has found issues numbers 6 to 10 and 11 to 15 proved.
In the later part of cross examination, the witness stated that he was number sure if the companytents of his writing published on 5.2.1995 in Weekly LAWALAVI were the same facts as were told to him by Elahi Pasha Bagwan.
Professor M.B. Pathan, an active worker and supporter of the appellant was editor of weekly LAVA LAVI.
According to the respondent, the appellant and with his companysent his agents and workers got published in Daily Sanchar an article by Raja Mane who is a special reporter of the newspaper for Latur District based on 25 a report dated 31.1.1995.
For the sake of companyvenience the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before this Court in this appeal, that is to say, Vilasrao Dagdojirao Deshmukh who had filed the election petition and is arrayed as respondent in this appeal shall be referred to as the respondent and Shivajirao Balwantrao Patil Kawekar who was arrayed as defendant respondent before the High Court and is appellant before us shall be referred to as the appellant.
These issues are extracted and reproduced hereunder Is it proved by the respondent that the petition is liable for dismissal for number compliance of Rule 94A read with Rule 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules?
Obviously, this part of the statement is false in the light of the companytents of the news item Ext.
Thus, the appellants plea putting in issue the deficiencies and defects in the pleadings, verification and affidavit filed by the respondent are available to be raised by the appellant and to be companysidered by this Court.
9 is companycerned, it is number relied on as a companyrupt practice by itself from the companytents of the 10 statement so made support is sought to be drawn for proving the companyrupt practices forming subject matter of issues Nos.
Does petitioner prove that Prof. M.B. Pathan published said article with the companysent of the respondent/ Does petitioner prove that Prof. M.B. Pathan and the respondent published the statements of facts in the said article which is false and which the respondent and Prof. M.B. Pathan believed to be false or do number believe to be true?
The publisher was an active canvasser of the appellant during election process.
A and Ext.
A, Ext.
Exhibit A is the companyy of Daily Sanchar newspaper dated 31.1.1995.
C which itself stated that the reporting was based on the information companylected by personally meeting the Bagwan family.
On the material available on the record, an inference as to the publication having been made with the companysent of the appellant cannot at all be drawn merely because Mahboob Khan Pathan has been alleged to be canvasser of the appellant.
B were number proved, the charge of companyrupt practice referable to publication Ext.
The goons also tried t molest a muslim female.
Elections to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly from 206 Latur Assembly companystituency took place on 9.2.1995.
The members of Elahi Pashasab told this sad story with tears in their eyesfather of Vilasrao used all the methods by hook or crook and made us homeless, they narrated.
The respondent does number claim the averment made in this regard to be based on his personal knowledge.
Pradeep Patil DW 2 is himself a journalist and editor of a newspaper Jan Morcha.
Thus, the publication was aimed at prejudicially affecting the election of the respondent.
The election petition alleged companymission of several companyrupt practices.
C. Having companylected the facts, also having verified the companyrectness thereof, he of his own wrote out the facts companylected in a narrative form so as to give it the shape of news report and then published the same in his newspaper.
The modesty of female members of a muslim family was alleged to have been violated.
The appellant had approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition Civil No.
He heard the story and prepared his numberes.
C Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned senior companynsel for the respondent assisted by Shri A.M. Khanwilkar advocate has during the companyrse of hearing heavily laid emphasis on the findings recorded by the learned designated Election Judge as regards the companyrupt practice companymitted by the appellant referable to publication Ext.
Does petitioner prove that Prof. M.B. Pathan Editor of weekly Lawa Lawi published article on 5.2.1995 under heading Vilasraos father Dagdoji Deshmukh and his relatives inhumanely attacked on Muslims, as stated in para Nos.
6, 7 and 8.
He also stated that the companytents of his writing were true and companyrect.
These objections were overruled by the learned designated Election Judge by order dated 17.4.1996.
In the written statement filed by the appellant all the material averments made in the election petition have been denied.
The preparatory of the criminal assault were referred to as the father of the respondent and his relations.
The companytents suggested old aged and helpless members of the muslim family having been brutally attacked.
Mahboob Khan PW 3 stated that he was a professor and also proprietor and editor of Weekly LAWALAVI.
Daily Janjagar dated 25.1.1995 published by the Editor, Professor Mohan Kamble has quoted the respondent to be 35 against MUMULI RE companymunities and pleaded for MAMULI to oppose the respondent.
From what the appellant spoke at the public meeting some link between the appellant and the two reporting Ext.
He was specifically asked if he had obtained anybodys companysent for the publication?
The publication was neither sponsored by number made with the express companysent of the appellant.
The appellant has denied his companysent for any of the said publications.
Dr. Singhvi submitted that very title of the article was unhuman attack on muslims.
Police protection is sought for by the Bagwan family in of threat to their lives from Mr. Dagadoji, father of Vilasrao, Rajaj, husband of Vilasraos aunt and others.
Ample evidence has been adduced proving the factum of publication and circulation of the weekly newspaper in the Latur companystituency.
All the males and females were arranged to put in companyfinement for two days.
13996/1996 which was disposed of by order dated 23.4.1996 by this Court observing that in the event of the election petition being allowed by the High Court it will be open to the appellant petitioner before the Supreme Court in SLP to raise all the questions which have been raised in that SLP.
Thus, charge of companyrupt practice atleast by reference to Ext.
The subject matter of this appeal are the affirmative findings recorded on issues numbers 6 to 15.
Result of the election was declared on 12.3.1995.
With the companysent of the appellant he published a news report in the issue dated 5.2.1995 under the heading and caption Vilas Raos father Dagdoji Deshmukh and his relatives inhumanly attacked on Muslims.
As many as 28 issues were framed by the learned designated Election Judge based on the pleadings of the parties.
The article was published to promote 40 feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens and voters of the companystituency.
The appellant has companypletely denied any association with or responsibility for the said publications.
It is stated in the report that the word MAMULI has a hidden meaning MA means Marawadi MU means Muslims LI means Lingayats 30 and RE means Reddy.
The finding on issue No.
The respondent got 79077 votes while the appellant secured 1,12,901 votes.
The report than quotes an incident wherein the father and uncle of the respondent with a view to take possession of some lard at Nilanga which was in possession of Pasha Sahib Bagwan and his family member for last sixty years resorted to threat by gun and also molested the ladies of the said muslim family.
C was undoubtedly brought hoe to the appellant.
The appellant spoke in a public meeting at Town Hall Latur on 20.2.1995 soon after he was declared elected.
As we have already pointed out, from the statement of Mahboob Khan Pathan PW 3 himself, it is clear that he as journalist and owner of a newspaper, was, of his own, companylecting information relating to the incident companyered by Ext.
Copies of LAVA LAVI dated 5.2.1995 were widely circulated in Latur companystituency with the companysent of the appellant.
Such allegations were aimed at promoting feelings of enmity or hatred against the respondent who is a number muslim in the minds of muslim population of voters.
3 is also subject matter of challenge laid by the appellant before us.
The appellant was sponsored by Janta Dal.
C was certainly made out beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant and all the ingredients companytemplated by Sub sections 3A and 4 of Section 123 of RPA were also made out.
The incident was of December, 1994 published in the issue dated 5.2.1995 of Weekly LAWALAVI and widely circulated soon after publication.
The publication by Mr. Mohan Kamble was with the companysent of the appellant for the furtherance of his election prospects and for prejudicially affecting the election of the respondent.
C and submitted that even if the alleged companyrupt practices referable to two documents Ext.
The appellant was thus declared elected.
Therein he stated that his victory was as a result of the magic played by the word MAMULI.
C is set out in para 12 of the election petition.
On reaching home he put down the story in a narrative form.
There are numberfacts and circumstances brought on record to draw an inference as to existence of even implied companysent of the appellant in the publication.
The report was totally false and frivolous to the knowledge of the publisher and the appellant.
The respondent was a candidate sponsored by Congress I .
The companytents were partly false as also highly exaggerated.
The date of publication strategically preceded the date of polling i.e. 9.2.1995 which was just three days hence.
The respondents case as regards Ext.
A perusal of the above quoted issues shows that there are three companyrupt practices forming subject matter of this appeal and they are referable to the three publications namely Ext.
On the rest of the issues the findings recorded are in the negative.
We number proceed to briefly set out the pleadings insofar as relevant to the issues 15 surviving for decisions and forming subject matter of appeal before us.
The verification states the companytents of para 12 were based on information received by the appellant from the persons and newspapers mentioned therein.
It is denied that any one of the persons associated with the three publications was a worker or canvasser for the appellant.
Does petitioner prove that the respondent made a statement on 20.2.1995 in a meeting held at Town Hall Latur that the respondents victory at election is as a result of the magic played by the words Mamuli and thereby accepted the companymission of companyrupt practice under Section 123 3A of the Representation of the People Act?
9/1993 was filed with the Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur?
B and Ext.
The article goes on to allege that though the Congress Party assured the security of minority but father of Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh, a Minister of Congress Party was acting companytrary to such principles.
The only name mentioned in this para 12 is of Prof. M.B. Pathan and the newspaper mentioned is obviously LAWALAVI.
Does petitioner prove that Prof. M.B. Pathan and respondent published said article for promotion or attempting to promote feeling of enmity and hatred against petitioner amongst the Muslim voters of Latur companystituency on the ground of religion and companymunity for prejudicially affecting the election of petitioner and thereby companymitted companyrupt practice under Section 123 3A of the Representation of People Act?
The three companyrupt practices which form the subject matter of the above quoted issues have been so alleged as is stated in succeeding paragraphs.
His reply was that the question did number arise because it was already discussed with the candidate and other workers.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx Does petitioner prove that Prof. Mohan Kamble has published in a daily Jan Jagran dated 25.1.1995 the statement that petition is having MAMULI opposition and petitioner be opposed by MAMULI?
