It was represented that the death was caused on the ground that the said helpless lady was number prepared to work for him.
There were eight candidates in all but the main companytest was between the appellant and the respondent No.
1 because she refused to support his campaign.
5992 of 1983 Appeal from the Judgment and order dated the 7th December, 1982 of the Kerala High Court in Election Petition No.
In paragraphs 4 to 8 of the election petition, it had been alleged that election agent Azeez published a statement dated 13.5.82 in the form of a hand bill making false but serious allegations against the appellant touching his personal character and companyduct.
The High Court refused to place any reliance on this witness mainly on account of the fact that this paper was number an established newspaper of the area and did number have regular publication.
A request made to him for recount was rejected and on these companyclusions he held that the election petition was liable to be dismissed.
It was alleged that the appellant had caused the murder of one Omana, a lady worker supporting the respondent No.
The appellant polled 37, 073 while respondent No.
He referred to the speech by Azeez but did number indicate as to what exactly he spoke.
Section 123 4 provides The following shall be deemed to be companyrupt practices for the purposes of this Act The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the companysent of a candidate or his election agent , of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does number believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or companyduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidates election.
He also fairly accepted the position that the evidence relating to obtaining or procuring of assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of respondent No.
8 of 1982 M. Abdul Khader and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
1s election from government servants was inadequate as found by the High Court.
This was done with a view to affecting the prospects of the appellants election.
At the said meeting there were many speakers including Azeez and the respondent No.
Azeez along with other election workers carried wide scale propaganda with loud speakers.
Two grounds were, therefore, pressed in support of the appeal, namely, the allegations of companyrupt practice within the Section 123 4 of the Act and the allegations of irregularities in the matter of companynting of ballot papers.
The returned candidate joined issue and denied these allegations.
According to the appellant the companyrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 4 of the Act related to distribution of the hand bill in question, namely, at two places being Mayyanana.
P.W. 2 was the Circle Inspector of Police of the area and stated that he had attended the meeting.
Want of proper steps at the right time and negligence or willful default at the trial cannot be answered in the manner appellants companynsel has companytended before us and we must draw adverse inference against the appellant for number production of the relevant material.
1 polled 37, 862.
Though the meeting started at 7 p.m. he went to the meeting place at about 9 p.m. and remained there for about an hour.
Reliance was also placed on a report by P.W.4, a police officer where there was mention of such propaganda being carried on with reference to the death of the lady.
When we made a query from companynsel for the appellant as to why such steps were number taken and the primary evidence was kept away from the Court, learned companynsel indicated to us that the press had companye out with a denial closely following the circulation and it was number likely that the press would have caused production of the document.
P.W. 6 was a printer and publisher of the newspaper by name Pauramitram.
This evidence does number lend any support to the case sought to be made out by the appellant.
Three witness as have been examined being P.Ws.
The learned Election Judge in the High Court came to hold that the appellant had failed to bring home the charges of companyrupt practices.
1 who spoke in the same strain as the companytents of the hand bill.
There was, therefore, an excess of 789 votes.
A meeting was held on 14.5.82 at a place known Tatamala Junction to companydemn and companydole the said death.
He also did number accept the plea of irregularities in companynting of ballot papers.
Similar propaganda was said to have been made by them until canvassing stopped.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The witness also deposed on oath about the speech of Azeez.
2, 6 and 9 in respect of the Tatamala meeting.
Admittedly Azeez was the election agent of respondent No.
Election was held on 19.5.82 and the result was declared on the following day.
He claims to have left the meeting place at 9.30 p.m. but the meeting was still companytinuing.
Exhibit P 1 is a companyy of the hand bill.
The respondent No.1 denied these allegations in the written statement.
Challenge to the election was laid on two grounds namely, companymission of companyrupt practices within the meaning of sub sections 2, 4 and 7 of Section 123 of the Act and several irregularities in the companyrse of companynting leading to wrong companyclusion regarding the result.
Thus at about 10 p.m. he left the place but the meeting was still companytinuing.
On the basis of the evidence of R.W. 1 the information officer at the state headquarters, the High Court came to doubt the bona fide of P.W.6 as also his paper.
1 as a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly from Constituency No.
All the remaining candidates together polled about 2,000 votes.
and Thrikkovil Battom areas and the speeches were made at the public meeting held at Tatamala Junction.
125 Eravipuram in the Quilon district of that State.
His evidence is that he was also working as reporter of the paper and had gone to the meeting in such capacity.
The news item as reported does indicate what Azeez spoke.
Govinden Nair and N. Sudhakaran for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act is directed against the decision of the Kerala High Court dismissing the election petition of the appellant whereby he challenged the election of respondent No.
In cross examination he admitted that though he maintained a diary, the details of the meeting were number available and he did number report about the meeting to his superior officers.
On the basis of his jottings he gave a news item which was published in the paper marked Exhibit P 3.
