Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- This appeal, under Section 123 of the Jammu and Kashmir. Representation of the People Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) as amended by Act 11 of 1967, is directed against the judgment and order dated December 15, 1967 of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Election Petition No. 37 of 1967. Section 123 of the Act corresponds to Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. In the General Election held in 1967, the appellant and the respondent had duly filed their nomination for election to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly from the Reasi Assembly Constituency. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was conducted on January 23. 1967 and the polling took place on February 21, 1967. The counting of the ballot papers took place on February 27, 1967 and the appellant was declared duly elected by a majority of 418 votes. The respondent filed an election petition on April 8, 1967 being No. 37 of 1967 challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that various corrupt practices set out in the petition, had been committed by the appellant, his agents and other persons with his consent in the said election. In consequence the respondent prayed for declaring the election of the appellant from the said constituency as null and void.

3. In paragraph 6 of the election petition, the respondent enumerated the various corrupt practices stated to have been committed during the election, in consequence of which the electioon of the respondent was void. It is not necessary for us to set out the various corrupt practices referred to in paragraph 6 of the election petition. The election of the appellant had been declared to be void by the High Court only on the ground that the matters mentioned in paragraphs 16, 17 and 20 of the booklet Ex. P. W. 1/II constitute corrupt practices under Section 132 (4) of the Act corresponding to Section 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. We may have to deal with certain other matters referred to in paragraph 6 of the election petition in the later part of the judgment, as the learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the judgment of the High Court by attacking the finding recorded against him in respect of some of those allegations.

4. Item No. 2 of paragraph 6 refers to the appellant, his agents, polling agents and other persons with his consent having published certain posters and booklets containing statements of facts, which were false and which they either believed to be false and did not believe to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of the respondent. Sub-item (a) of item No. 2 refers to the publication of a booklet under the caption "open letter from Dehati (Rural) Conference to Mr. Rishi Kumar Kaushal and other Jan Sangh leaders." This is Ex.P. W. 1/II. It was published by one Lal Singh R. W.53. and active worker of the Indian National Congress and the agent of the appellant. Lal Singh was later on appointed by the appellant as his polling agent. Ex. P.W. 1/II was alleged to contain wrong facts in several paragraphs enumerated in the petition. There were other allegations of corrupt practices mentioned in paragraph 6 of the election petition.

5. The appellant in his written statement pleaded that none of the allegations that had been made against him by the respondent in the election petition contained material facts constituting the alleged corrupt practices. He further pleaded that the respondent had not mentioned the parties who are alleged to have committed the corrupt practices nor the dates and places when the corrupt practices are alleged to have been committed. Regarding the various allegations of corrupt practices, the appellant denied that he had committed any such corrupt practices and that in any event the allegations do not amount to corrupt practice in law. With reference to Ex. P. W. 1/II, the booklet, the appellant averred that the publication was really a rejoin