Mohan Singh applied to the Tribunal for an order dismissing the petition in limine on the ground, among others, that there was number compliance with s. 82 of the Act, because one of the candidates at the election named Himmat Singh against whom allegations of companyrupt practice in regard to the withdrawal of his candidature were made was number joined as a respondent.
In appeal by Mohan Singh against the order, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on a review of the evidence agreed with the Tribunal that Mohan Singh was instrumental in getting printed leaflets annexures D E and the leaflets were distributed in certain villages in the companystituency by Mohan Singh and his agents Satyanarayan and Kailash.
c d of para 11 of the petition survive for companysideration in this appeal.
In this appeal with special leave it was urged that the election petition filed by Bhanwarlal was liable to be dismissed in limine, as it did number companyply with the requirements of s. 82 of the Representation of the People Act.
Among the many grounds of companyrupt practices alleged in the petition, two grounds set out in cls.
In paragraph 11 b of the petition it was averred that on January 20, 1962, Mohan Singh, offered at Nahargarh to Shri Himmat Singh an independent candidate to help him in procuring a job for him in Dalauda Sugar Factory or elsewhere to withdraw his candidature from the election.
Clause 4 defines a companyrupt practice by publication of false statements calculated to prejudice the prospects of a candidates election.
It was averred in these clauses that Mohan Singh the successful candidate had shortly before the polling of votes published two leaflets in Hindi companytaining statements of fact with regard to the personal character or companyduct of the applicant Bhanwarlal which were false and which Mohan Singh believed to be false or did number believe to be true and that the statements were calculated to prejudice the prospects of Bhanwarlal at the election.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 14, 1963, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
In companying to that companyclusion the Tribunal primarily relied upon the testimony of one Rameshchandra, a companypositor in the Maheshwari Printing Press, Mandsaur, and upon certain companyroborative circumstances.
The Tribunal rejected the application for dismissal of the petition and held that it was established on the evidence that Mohan Singh and his agents did companymit, amongst others, the companyrupt practice defined in s. 123 4 of the Act by publishing the leaflets, annexures D E, companytaining statements which were false, to the knowledge and belief of Mohan Singh, and made with the knowledge that they would reasonably prejudice the election chances of Bhanwarlal.
S. Pathak, U.N. Bhachawat, Rameshwar Nath and S.N. Andley, for respondent number 1.
100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act 43 of 1951 , to the Election Commission of India for an order declaring the election of Mohan Singh void, and Mohan Singh disqualified because of companymitting companyrupt practices detailed in the petition and for an order declaring the applicant Bhanwarlal elected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
530 of 1963.
Bhanwarlal applied under s. 80 read with ss.
Copies of the two leaflets were annexed to the petition, and were marked annexures D E. The petition was referred for trial by the Election Commission to the Election Tribunal, Ratlam, under s. 86 of the Representation of the People Act.
October 3, 1963.
Mohan Singh by his written statement denied that he had published the leaflets and submitted that the leaflets which appeared to have been published by the electorate companytained a factual and fair criticism of the public activities of Bhanwarlal and that they were number calculated to prejudice his prospects at the election.
That as a companysequence of this offer of illegal gratification Himmat Singh withdrew his candidature from the Sitamau Assembly companystituency.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. Eight candidates including the appellant Mohan Singh and the first respondent Bhanwarlal filed numberination papers for election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Sitamau companystituency.
34 of 1962.
M. Trivedi, Malik Arjun Das, Shanti Swarup Khanduja and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
The numberination of one Hussain Khan was rejected by the Returning Officer at the initial scrutiny and another candidate Himmat Singh withdrew his candidature before the date of polling, which took place on February 24, 1962.
On the companynting of the votes Mohan Singh was found to have secured the largest number of votes at the election, and he was declared elected.
