Judgement

HEGDE, J.: This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). It arises from election petition No. 37 of 1967 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench). That was an application filed by the appellant under Section 81 of the Act challenging the validity of the election of the respondent from the Bhind Assembly Constituency of Madhya Pradesh on various grounds. The election in question took place in February, 1967. In that election as many as five candidates contested, amongst whom the respondent, the nominee of the S.S.P. was one. His main rival was the congress candidate Shri Narsingh Rao Dixit. The polling took place on February 17, 1967 and the votes were counted on February 21, 1967. The respondent secured 20928 votes and his nearest rival Shri Narsingh Rao Dixit secured 14873 votes. The other candidates secured much less and it is not necessary to refer to them in the course of this judgment. The respondent was declared duly elected.

2. The petitioner is one of the electors in the Bhind Assembly constitutency. Obviously he is a supporter of Shri Dixit. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear he is fighting the battle of Shri Dixit.

3. The election of the responent was challenged in the High Court on numerous grounds. On the pleadings, several issues were raised. As many as 35 witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant, and 49 on behalf of the responent. The learned trial judge came to the conclusion that none of the grounds alleged in the petition was established. He accordingly dismissed the election petition with costs. Hence this appeal.

4. Though various allegations of corrupt practices were made against the respondent, most of them were not pressed at the hearing of the appeal. Only three out of the many grounds taken in the petition were pressed for our acceptance. Hence we shall confine our attention only to those grounds.

5. It was alleged in the election petition that Shri Triyogi Narain Sharma, the election agent of the respondent who was also the Editor of the newspaper Udgar had published false statements of facts, knowing them to be false regarding the personal character of Shri Dixit with a view to prejudice his chances in the election, in the Udgar issues dated February 1, 1967, February 8, 1967 and February 15, 1967. It was further alleged that those issues were freely distributed by the respondent, Shri Sharma and other supporters of the respondent. In the election petition it was alleged that Shri Sharma had been appointed as the election agent of the respondent on January 25, 1967.

6. The High Court came to the conclusion that Shri Sharma was appointed as the election agent of the respondent only on February 16, 1967 and not on January 25, 1967. This finding was not challenged before us.

7. After a careful examination of the articles complained of, the High Court held that they contained false statements of fact relating to the personal character and conduct of Shri Dixit; those statements were known to be false to Shri Sharma and they were published with a view to prejudice Shri Dixit s chances in the election. On a reading of the articles in question, there can be hardly two opinions about those articles. We are in complete agreement with the High Court on this aspect of the case.

8. The question whether those articles were published with the consent or knowledge of the respondent does not arise for decision as it was not alleged in the election petition that they were published either with the consent or knowledge of the respondent or at his instance. It is clear from the evidence on record that Shri Sharma and Shri Dixit were bitter enemies from a very long time. Shri Dixit had filed a suit for defamation against Shri Sharma and had obtained a decree for damages against him. That matter was pending in appeal at the time of the election in 1967. It is also clear from the evidence that Shr