Judgment

GROVER, J.-This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dismissing a petition filed by the defeated candidate Devi Prasad under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), hereinafter called the "Act" challenging the election of Maluram Singhania respondent No. 1, the successful candidate from the Birendranagar Constituency in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

2. The election was held on February 16, 1967. Out of the four respondents, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 withdrew their nomination papers and the election was contested by the appellant and the first two respondents. The result of the election was declared on February 2, 1967. The appellant got 14,465 votes. Respondent No. 1 obtained 15,811 votes and was declared elected. The election petition which was filed in April 1967 was contested by the first respondent alone, the proceedings against the other respondent being ex parte. The pleadings of the parties will be presently noticed to the extent they are relevant to the issues on which argument has taken place before us. In all nine issues were framed out of which the controversy in this Court has centred round issue Nos. 2 and 3. These issues are in the following terms :

Untitled Document

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1.

..........................

2.

Whether the respondent No. 1 himself or his

agent and workers with his consent published

statements as given in Schedule No. 1 in the

paper "Sanmarg" in Exts. P-19, P-20 P. 12, P. 13

and P. 23 and are these the false statements

under Section 123(4) of the Representation of

People Act ?

Decided in

favour of

respondent

No. 1.

3.

(a) Whether respondent No. 1, his agents and

workers with his consent made an appeal to

Hindu electorates who are orthodox, innocent

and illiterate to vote for him on the ground of

race, community and religion and refrained

them from voting for the petitioner as detailed

in Schedule I and Schedule II of the petition and

in Exts. P-1, P-6, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-16, P-17, P-18,

P-21, P-26, P-28, and were these statements false

and amount to corrupt practices under Sections

123(3) and 123(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Act?

and if not,

Not proved.

(b) whether the statements contained in Schedule I have materially affected the election ?"

No.

The High Court decided these issues in favour of respondent No. 1.

3. Before the relevant pleadings are noticed it may be mentioned that the appellant was a candidate who had been sponsored by the Congress Party. Respondent No. 1 belonged to the Ram Rajya Parishad which was a recognised political party but since its recognition was withdrawn respondent No. 1 was allotted the symbol "Rising Sun" as an independent candidate. According to Para 6 of the petition, respondent No. 1 had set up one printing press known as Sanmarg Press. He was also the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Hindi newspaper known as "SAPTAHIK SANMARG" published by that press. It was alleged that the printing of the newspaper was done by respondent No. 1 through his servants and employees. In Para 10 it was alleged that respondent No. 1 and his agents and workers committed, with his consent, the corrupt practice of publication of statement of facts which were false and which were believed to be false and were not believed to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of the appellant. These statements were contained in the paper Sanmarg and in the election bulletins set out in Schedule I annexed to the petition. In Para 11 it was stated that respondent No. 1 and his agents and workers, with his consent, made systematic appeals to the Hindu electors to vote for him on grounds of race, community, religion and to refrain from voting for the appellant on the alleged ground that the latter cow-slaughter which was sinful according to Hindu religion. According to the appellant the constituency consists of villages inhabited by persons who are generally illiterate and who are very orthodox in their views. They worship cow as god a