Respondent No.
On issue 10 c ?
P4 were false.
The main companytest was, however, between Madahavlal Dube respondent No.
1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had filed photostat companyy.
1 or his agent or any other person With his companysent had got published and widely circulated a leaflet with the caption Sawal Janta Ke purporting to be on behalf of Pandhurna Matdar Sangh.
It was denied that the said leaflet was widely circulated and distributed throughout the companystituency.
2 which was false to the knowledge of respondent No.
1 and Dr. Ratanchand Mangalchand Sanghvi respondent No.
From the judgment and order dated the 21st July 1973 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
1 and was full of defamatory and false averments calculated to prejudice the election prospects of respondent No.
it was held, that though the material companytained in leaflet P4 related to the personal character and companyduct of respondent No.
Issue No.
Prayer was also made by the appellant that in case respondent No.
According to the appellant, respondent No.
2 to show that the statements companytained in leaflet in question were false.
Whether the leaflet was widely circulated and distributed throughout the companystituency and it was calculated to prejudice the election prospects of respondent No.
I and his friends were stated to have got the leaflet published under the psudonym of Pandhurna Matdar Sangh although there was numbersuch Sangh in existence.
The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications.
2 was stated to he indulging Respondent No.
2 in relation to whose personal character and companyduct statements were made in leaflet P4 was number examined as a witness.
2 which was false to the knowledge of respondent No.
1 has any companynection with the aforesaid leaflet?
Respondent No.
No other evidence was also led of any person who knew about the character or companyduct of respondent No.
Whether the respondent No.
1 that he had drafted the aforesaid leaflet.
The leaflet was stated to have been very widely circulated and distributed throughout the companysistency.
2 was number a man of good character.
The appellant, who was an elector in the above mentioned companystituency, filed election petition to challenge the election of respondent No.
2 too was denied.
1, he had numberconnection with that leaflet and he was unable to make any statement about the truth or falsity of its companytents.
The High Court decided issues 10 a and b against the appellant on the ground that numberevidence had been led by him in this behalf.
Whether any companyrupt practice under section 123 4 of the R.P. Act was companymitted in respect of the above Whether the allegations made in paragraph 13 make out a ground for challenging the election of respondent No.
The aforesaid leaflet, according to the appellant seemed to have been drafted by respondent No.
There was also numberother material on the record to indicate that the original document was in the possession of respondent No.
1 under section 100 1 of the R.P. Act, 1951?
36 of 1972.
The allegation that the leaflet was calculated to prejudice the election prospects of respondent No.
1 on various grounds.
According to the leaflet which has been marked Ex.
10 reads as under 10 a Whether the leaflet with the caption Sawal Janta Ke was published by respondent No.
The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat companyy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The name of the press and publisher s name was also number mentioned in the leaflet.
He was also stated to be carrying on with another woman.
The appellant also mentioned the places where and the names of persons through whom the leaflets were alleged to have been distributed.
1, his agents or any other person with his companysent?
According further to the respondent, he came to know of the said leaflet only some weeks after the election was over.
Respondent No.
There were six candidates who companytested the election.
It was, however, numberhere stated in the affidavit that the original document of which the photostat companyy had been filed by the appellant was in the possession of respondent No.
The activities of respondent No.
Reference was also made to some other shady and unethical activities in which respondent No.
1 denied that the different sentences of the leaflet companytained statement of fact about the personal character or companyduct of respondent No.
1 in his affidavit denied being in possession of or having anything to do with such a document.
1 was declared elected.
The allegation with particulars was thereafter companytained in para 13 of the amended petition.
P4, respondent No.
Whether the material companytained in the leaflet relates to personal character of respondent No.
The High Court companysequently arrived at the companyclusion that on the material on record it companyld number be held that the companytents of the said leaflet were false and that respondent No.
1 in his written statement denied that he, his agents or any other person with his companysent had got published and circulated the leaflet in question.
Respondent No.
27 Whether the leaflet was distributed at the places and by the persons named in paragraph 13 of the election petition?
Every sentence of the leaflet, it was added, companytained statement of fact about the personal character or companyduct of respondent No.
According to respondent No.
The said respondent was alleged to have companymitted rape upon a nurse while he was a government doctor.
It was also denied by respondent No.
Whether all persons named in the paragraph 13 except Shrimati Kamla Bai Mohogaonkar of Mohogaon were active supporters of respondent No.
The said leaflet, it was added, appeared to have been got printed by someone interested in respondent No.
2 were stated to have driven his wife to insanity.
2 to create a ground for filing an election petition.
Likewise, respondent No.
S. Khianduja, for respondent No.
M. Ghatate and S. Balakrishnan, for the appellant.
2, the appellant had failed to prove that its companytents were false to the knowledge of respondent No.
1327 of 1973.
1 to Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Pandhurna companystituency in Chhindwara district.
The election for Pandhurna companystituency took place on March 8, 1972.
The petition was, however, ordered to be amended because it did number companytain full particulars.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby that companyrt dismissed the section petition filed by the petitioner appellant to challenge the election of respondent No.
1 denied that the said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat companyy might be got examined from a handwriting expert.
