Judgment

HEGDE, J.: The appellant is the returned candidate from the Rajura constituency of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly in the general election held in February 1967. In that election he secured 21435 votes as against by his nearest rival, the first respondent herein, the nominee of the Indian National Congress. The first respondent was representing that constituency prior to the said general election. The first respondent challenged the validity of the appellant s election in Election Petition No. 14 of 1967 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) on two grounds namely (1) that the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate in that election and (2) that he was guilty of corrupt practices under section 123 (4) of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he was guilty of publishing statements of facts which are false and which he either believed to be false or did not believe them to be true, in relation to the personal character and conduct of the first respondent. It did not uphold the contention of first respondent that the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate.

2. Though at one stage Mr. Hazarnavis, learned Counsel for the first respondent attempted to support the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate, he finally gave up that contention. Therefore it is not necessary to examine the same.

3. The High Court had found that the appellant was responsible for the publication of Exhs. 55 and 56 which according to it contained statements of facts relating to the personal character and conduct of the first respondent and those statement were either false to his knowledge or at any rate he did not believe them to be true. It further came to the conclusion that in some of the election meetings the appellant had falsely stated that the first respondent had a share in the contract secured by him for one Abid Hussain.

4. The bulk of the evidence adduced in this case relates to the controversy whether the appellant was responsible for the printing and publication of Exhs. 55 and 56. The High Court has accepted the case of the first respondent that the appellant was responsible for printing and publishing those pamphlets. We have been taken through that evidence and we agree with the High Court on that aspect of the case. It is not necessary to deal with evidence as we are opinion that the statements contained in those pamphlets do not amount to corrupt practice under section 123 (4) of the Act. Section 123 (4) reads:

"The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person (with the consequent of a candidate of his election agent) of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct 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 candidate s election."

The ingredients of the corrupt practice mentioned in this section are (1) the publication by a candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consequent of that candidate or his election agent of any statement of fact, (2) which statement is false and which was believed by the candidate to be false or at any rate was not believed by him to be true; (3) the said statement relates to the personal character or conduct of a candidate or in relation to his candidature or withdrawal and (4) the same being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate s election.

5. As explained by this Court in Sheopal Singh v. Ram Pratap, (1965) 1 SCR 175 section 123 (4) is designed to achieve the dual purpose of protecting freedom of speech and prevention of malicious attack on the personal character a