daroli 2.3.72 kanhaiyalal nagori diken dheeraj vyas mantri ratangarh of ratangarh carwada 3.3.1972 block yuvak companygress alori javad.
kabriya 3.3.1972 singoli 3.3.1972 5 c .
the appellant also gave rebuttal evidence with regard to all the charges levelled against him by examining 21 witnesses including himself and by producing various documents.
from the judgment and order dated the 7 3 74 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt indore bench in election petition number 9 of 1972.
vijaychankar sharma of neemuch shankarlal bhatevara president of block companygress javad and dheeraj vyas secretary block yuvak congress javad published statements of fact which are totally false and which the respondent number 1 and his said agents believed to be false or did number believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of the respondent number 4 being statements reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of respondent number 4.
23064.
virendrakumar saklecha for brevity saklecha who was a jan sangh candidate being respondent number 4 both in the election petition as well as in this appeal obtained the second highest number of votes viz.
by the said pamphlet the respondent number 1 through his agents parasram agarwal of singoli chosarmalji of singoli bhanwarlal badolia of kadwasa ghanshyam patidar of neemuch.
tehsil parasmal s o kanhaiyalal nagori neemuch the said persons were active workers and agents of the respondent number 1 and the said parasmal is his son and agent.
best place for printing shriram printing press in front of jaju bhawan neemuch.
4 a whether respondent number 1 kanhaiyalal through the block companygress companymittee javad published the bulletin as reproduced in para 5 d of the petition and also got it freely distributed on a large scale and on the dates mentioned in para 5 d of the petition ?
he stated that kanhaiyalal told them that the jan sangh candidate was being elected for the last fifteen years and the companystituency was very much handicapped and that this time the companygress candidate should be elected.
he denied the printing publication and distribution of the aforesaid two pamphlets either by himself or by others with his companysent.
amongst others tulsiram pw 7 and bhanwarlal pw 8 were also sitting with him.
whether the statement of facts in the said bulletin was false and or which the respondent number 1 did number believe it to be true in regard to the personal character and companyduct of respondent number 4 ?
saklecha was being returned from this companystituency since 1957 having won the election in that year and in the next two successive years 1962 and 1967.
the said pamphlet was printed in shriman press neemuch and the signatories to the said pamphlets are all members and important office bearers of the companygress party and who were actively companyducting the election propaganda of the respondent number 1.
saklecha was the deputy chief minister in that government from july 1967 to march 1969.
the said pamphlet contained allegations against the respondent number 4 which are totally false to the knumberledge of respondent number 1 and his said agents and other persons who distributed the said pamphlet.
ravishankar sharma respondent number 2 who was a socialist candidate obtained 1300 votes and jagmohan respondent number 3 an independent candidate obtained 1104 votes.
jagdishchandra airen dhaneria shivlal rawat and jawi advocate of neemuch.
then he distributed the pamphlet similar to ex.
whether the said statement was calculated to prejudice the result of the election of respondent number 4 ?
dhaneria 5 c khemraj moti jat village morwan .
whether the persons named in paragraph 5 c of the petition were active workers and agents of the respondent number 1 ?
the high companyrt set aside the election on the ground of certain companyrupt practices but this companyrt set aside the judgment of the high companyrt in january 1972.
kanhaiyalal naogri newas 2.3.72 shankarlal bhatevara jawi 2.3.72 of javad thadoli 2.3.72 president block lasur 2.3.72 congress javad.
the aforesaid pamphlet an english rendering reproduced below sic false allegations against the personal character and companyduct of respondent number 4 ex.
the said pamphlet was distributed by the respondent number 1 and with his companysent and in his presence and under his direction by his agents and workers who were accompanying him in the jeep while touring the companystituency the particulars of which are given below name of the person place date who distributed pamphlet.
the said persons distributed the said pamphlet which they were carrying on for the respondent number 1.
that the respondent number 1 through the block congress companymittee javad published an election bulletin dated 6.3.1972 under the caption of companygress tatha anya dalo kee sachhi hakeekat and got it distributed free on a large scale throughout the javad constituency.
seklecha lodged a companyplaint dated 26th february 1972 with the returning officer about the distribution of the pamphlet enclosing a companyy of the panchnama prepared at jawi on 25th february 1972.
the said pamphlet is in malvi dialect and was distributed on a large scale throughout the constituency by the candidate himself and through his workers and agents by his companysent and companynivance.
the companystituency was javad companystituency of the madhya pradesh legislative assembly.
to what relief the parties are entitled to?
p 1 indira gandhi jindabad prakashchand sethi jindabad election symbol birds eye view of saklechas regime dear villagers this is the election period.
he denied that he was a jan sangh worker.
as stated earlier the election of the appellant was challenged by an elector mannalal by an election petition filed on april 24 1972 alleging companyrupt practices under section 123 4 of the representation of the people act briefy the act which reads as follows the following shall be deemed to be companyrupt practices for the purposes of this act x x x x 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.
2 a whether respondent number 1 kanhaiyalal and with his companysent in his presence and under his direction his agents and workers named in paragraph 5 b of the petition also distributed the said phmphlet at the places and on the dates mentioned in the said paragraph?
the appellant kanhaiyalal was declared elected by a margin of 2530 votes.
came into power in the state.
parasram agarwal singoli vice president of janpad panchayat javad chosarmal sarpanch panchayat singoli bhanwarlal badolia sarpanch panchayat kadwasa ghanshyam patidar pleader neemuch janakpur vijayshankar sharma neemuch mahudia shankarlal bhatevara president block congress javad dheeraj vyas secretary block youth congress.
all this documentary evidence lands companyroboration to the existence of the pamphlet prior to the poll and even to its circulation.
b i whether the said pamphlet was also distributed with companysent of respondent number 1 kanhaiyalal by the persons at the places and on the dates mentioned in paragraph 5 c of the petition?
the statements companytained in the said pamphlet are false and which the said persons and the respondent number 1 believed to be false and did number believe to be true.
government fell in 1969.
the trial judge answered the first question in favour of the election petitioner issue number 2 a also in favour of the petitioner except at the places newad and kabriya issue number 2 b i 2 b ii and issue number 3 in favour of the petitioner issue number 4 a also in favour of the petitioner except at the places dadoli diken and jhantia and issue number 4 b and c also in favour of the petitioner.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 870 of 1974.
the s.v.d.
hardayal hardy and s. k. gambhir for respondent number 1.
jhatla 5 d the petition was companytested only by kanhaiyalal.
this was quick action indeed.
in this buletin there is a reference to an interview with the companygress candidate respondent number 1 in the form of questions and answers.
the high companyrt arrived at a companypletely erroneous finding regarding the printing of the document ex.p 1 at the instance of ghanshyam patidar.
there were four companytesting candidates.
the said pamphlet was also distributed with the consent of the respondent number 1 by the following persons the particulars whereaf are as follows name of the person place date ghanshyam patidar village 25.2.72.
whether the said pamphlet companytained statements of facts which were false and or which the respondent number 1 and his alleged agents and workers did number believe it to be true ?
on the pleadings the following issues were raised in the trial whether respondent number 1 kanhaiyalal through the block companygress companymittee javad got published the pamphlet saklecha ke karyakal par ek nazar as reproduced in para 5 a of the petition?
in the 1967 election wherein he won there was an election petition against him.
morwan 5 d balooram dhakar village jhatla .
the poll took place on march 8 1972 and the result was declared on march 12 1972.
he further stated that about six days after the poll he met mannalal and talked to him about the incorrect statement circulator in the form of pamphlet which affected the result of the election.
the last two candidates forfeited their security deposit.
in the companyrse of cross examination he stated that kanhaiyalal and shankarlal bhatevara were number accompanied by any person on that day.
the appellant kanhaiyalal who was a companygress candidate and respondent number 1 in the election petition obtained 25594 votes.
respondent number 1 was official companygress candidate and he was also provincial companygress companymittee member representing block companymittee javad and president janpad panchayat javad.
he instructed his lawyer to serve registered numberices on the signatories of the pamphlets and registered numberices bear the date 27th february 1972.
s. khanduja and sushil kumar jain for respondent number 4.
it may be appropriate to describe from the election petition itself the allegations against the returned candidate kanhaiyalal nagori that the election of the returned candidate respondent number 1 is liable to be declared void and set aside on the following grounds that the respondent number 1 got published through block companygress companymittee javad a pamphlet entitled saklecha ke karyakal par ek nazar and it was distributed throughout the javad companystituency by the respondent number 1 himself and by his workers and agents with his companysent.
in the year 1968 companygress government was defeated and samyukat vidhayak dal briefy s.v.d.
saklecha took care to prepare panchnamas for the distribution of the offending pamphlets at jawi and dhaneria on 25th february 1972.
the pamphlet was distributed both by kanhaiyalal and shankarlal bhatevara.
2 and 3.
ex parte respondent number.
r. nahata and rameshwar nath for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by goswami j. this is an appeal under section 116a of the representation of the people act 1951 against the judgment of the high companyrt of madhya pradesh in an election petition filed by an elector named mannalal respondent number 1 in this appeal hereinafter to be described as the petitioner for setting aside the election of the appellant kanhaiyalal nagori.
