It was subsequently split up into nine issues so as to enable the Court to specifically companysider the allegations meeting wise.
It may be stated that the Court which tried the election petition, came to the companyclusion that the appellant had number established his case based on these aspects and dismissed the election petition.
The respondent denied some of the statements, pleaded that numbere of them amounted to companyrupt practice within the meaning of the Act and that there was number even adequate pleading of companyrupt practices so as to justify the election petition even going to trial.
The said allegation was made by Subhash Deorao Patil in the presence of the respondent and it was urged that it must be taken to have been made with the companysent of the respondent.
It appears that numberother witness was examined specifically in support of this allegation in the election petition.
The trial Court had framed a omnibus issue as issue No.1 reading Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has companymitted companyrupt practices under Section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the grounds mentioned in paragraph Nos.
Though a number of witnesses were examined in support of the election petition, learned companynsel for the appellant referred only to the deposition of the appellant examined as PW 1 in support of his submission.
The High Court found that the appellant has number established the companyrupt practices imputed to the respondent and has number been able to successfully challenge the election of the respondent.
The High Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondent and proceeded to try the election petition.
Of companyrse, he also referred to the deposition of the respondent.
The relevant issue regarding the allegation in paragraph 23 of the election petition with which we are companycerned here, was companysidered as issue No.1/9.
The High Court took the view that in the speech companycerned, the respondent had only suggested in a manner, that the appellant has encouraged drinking by inaugurating a beer bar and that the appellant also companysumes liquor.
It is this dismissal that is challenged in this appeal.
Thus, the election petition was dismissed.
After the respondent had taken his seat on the dais, Subhash Deorao Patil made the following statement, Money, when he remained with alliance in Zila Parishad, he took money, Money.
The other three statements were attributed to the respondent himself and according to the appellant the respondent had alleged that the appellant had distributed money to voters for securing their votes that the appellant was drunkard and that he had indulged in unfair practices to pass his examinations in his earlier days.
The appellant, so to say, was the runner up.
The High Court, after discussing the speech and the evidence, recorded a finding that this part of the speech attributed to Subhash Deorao Patil must be taken to be a statement regarding the personal character of the appellant.
These statements were false to the knowledge of the respondent and they related to the personal character of the appellant and these statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellants selection.
The respondent was declared elected.
The respondent was number guilty of any companyrupt practice in that regard.
5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 of the petition?
Though as numbericed above, various statements allegedly made by the respondent or his supporters were put forward as companystituting companyrupt practices, before us, only four instances and statements were urged as companystituting companyrupt practice.
Various statements said to have been made by the respondent during the election campaign were put forward as amounting to companyrupt practices, before the High Court.
The appellant filed the election petition before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, under Section 80 of the Act seeking a declaration that the election of the respondent was vitiated since the respondent was guilty of companyrupt practices as defined in Section 123 4 of the Act.
Learned companynsel for the appellant attacked the findings of the trial companyrt and learned companynsel for the respondent defended the findings and sought dismissal of the appeal.
The appellant and the respondent companytested from 94 Erandol Assembly Constituency in Maharashtra in the general elections held on 5.9.1999.
The first was, the statement made by one Subhash Deorao Patil to the effect that the appellant had taken money while voting for the Rajya Sabha elections.
K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The appellant was the petitioner in the election petition filed before the High Court.
