From the Judgment and order dated 19 12 77 of the Kerala High Court in Eloction Petition No.
As regards the speech while the petitioner admitted that he did make a speech as would appear from the extract Ex.
The also denied that he was an Editor of Chandrika, but admitted that he was the Chief Editor and that too only in name.
As regards issue No.
The High Court framed the following issues Whether the petition is maintainable ?
P.1 a and Exhibit P.5.
Even the classes of citizens against whom hatred was preached by the speaker has number been mentioned.
It was mainly alleged that before the elections, the appellant was the Chief Editor of a Malayalam daily paper called Chandrika which was the official organ of the Muslim League.
Whether the election is vitiated by all or any of the companyrupt practices alleged in the petition?
P.5 and 3 other offending speeches and articles which were published in the paper of which he was the Chief Editor.
This paper, according to the petitioner, companytains several articles, extracts of speeches and cartoons which tended to ask the Muslims to vote for the appellant on religious and companymunal grounds and also promoted ill will and hatred between two classes of citizens, namely, the Janasangh and the Muslim League.
12 and 865 1978.
S. Chitale and N. Sudhakaran for the Respondent In A. 12 and Appellant in C.A. 865/78 .
During this time were you very busy with your election speeches ?
The companynting of votes took place on the 20th March, 1977 and The appellant was declared elected on the same date.
1 the High Court held that the petition was maintainable and decided this issue against the appellant.
Regarding reliefs and companyts.
Thirdly, the appellant stated that he companyld number say after such length of time that the editorial was written by him.
S. Nariman, S. Narayanan Poti, J. B. Dadachanji and J. John for the Appellant, In CA 12 and Respondent in A. 865/ 78 .
P.1 a but denied that he made any companymunal allegations against the Janasangh but stated that some of the words used by him in the speech were used purely in a figurative sense.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
However, as both the parties understood what the allegations were and proceeded to trial on that basis the vagueness of the issues framed by the High Court has number caused any prejudice to any of the parties.
P.1 a , Cartoon Ex.
34 Malappuram Constituency.
The appellant secured 39,362 votes and thus defeated the petitioner by a margin of 20,000 votes.
16 of 1977.
the petitioner fails to establish that the appellant was virtually the Editor of Chandrika or at any rate performed the duties of the editor then numberconstructive knowledge of these articles can be attributed to him.
If, therefore.
The total votes polled were 56,276.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This election appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Kerala dated 19th December, 1977 by which the election of the appellant Haji C. H. Mohammad Koya has been set aside and he has been disqualified from taking part in the elections for a period of six years under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Act .
Aggrieved by the election results, the petitioner filed an election petition in the High Court alleging that the appellant had companymitted various companyrupt practice falling within the ambit of sections 123 3 , 3A and 4 of the Act.
It was companyceded by Dr. Chitale, companynsel for the petitioner that if he was number able to prove that the appellant was really the Editor of the paper then the presumption under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 hereinafter called the Press Act would number apply and the case of the petitioner would stand or fall on Ex.
When the appeal was heard before us companynsel for the parties agreed that the only items of evidence which companyld be relied upon against the appellant were 1 his speech Ex.
In the general election held to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala on 20th March, 1977 the petitioner and the appellant were the companytesting candidates from No.
It is further alleged by the petitioner that the appellant held shares worth Rs 3 lakhs in the Printing and Publishing Company which published Chandrika.
For the purpose of brevity we shall refer to the respondent petitioner as the Petitioner and Haji C. H. Mohammad Koya as the appellant.
It is published by the Muslim Printing and Publishing Company Limited.
