Judgment

H. R. KHANNA, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby that court dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner-appellant to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 to Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly Pandhurna constituency in Chhindwara District.

2. The election for Pandhurna constituency took place on March 8, 1972. There were six candidates who contested the election. The main contest was, however, between Madhavlal Dube respondent No. 1 and Dr. Ratanchand Mangalchand Sanghvi respondent No. 2. Respondent No, 1 was declared elected. The appellant, who was an elector in the above mentioned constituency, filed election petition to challenge the election of respondent No. 1 on various grounds. It is not necessary to set out all the grounds because in appeal before us only one ground which is the subject-matter of Issue No. 10 has been pressed on behalf of the appellant. The allegation which gave rise to issue No. 10 was contained in para. 13 of the election petition. The petition was, however, ordered to be amended because it did not contain full particulars. The allegation with particulars was thereafter contained in para. 13 of the amended petition. According to the appellant, respondent No. 1 or his agent or any other person with his consent had got published and widely circulated a leaflet with the caption "Sawal Janta Ke" purporting to be on behalf of Pandhurna Matdar Sangh. The aforesaid leaflet, according to the appellant, seemed to have been drafted by respondent No. 1 and was full of defamatory and false averments calculated to prejudice the election prospects of repdt. No. 2. The leaflet was stated to have been very widely circulated and distributed throughout the constituency. Every sentence of the leaflet it was added contained statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of respondent No. 2 which was false to the knowledge of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 and his friends were stated to have got the leaflet published under the pseudonym of Pandhurna Matdar Sangh although there was no such Sangh in existence. The name of the press and publisher s name was also not mentioned in the leaflet. The appellant also mentioned the places where and the names of persons through whom the leaf lets were alleged to have been distributed.

3. According to the leaflet which has been marked Ex. P-4, respondent No. 2 was not a man of good character. The said respondent was alleged to have committed rape upon a nurse while he was a government doctor. He was also stated to be carrying on with another woman. The activities of respondent No. 2 were stated to have driven his wife to insanity. Reference was also made to some other shady and unethical activities in which respondent No. 2 was stated to be indulging.

4. Respondent No. 1 in his written statement denied that he, his agents or any other person with his consent had got published and circulated the leaflet in question. It was also denied by respondent No. 1 that he had drafted the aforesaid leaflet, According to respondent No. 1, he had no connection with that leaflet and he was unable to make any statement about the truth or falsity of its contents, it was denied that the said leaflet was widely circulated and distributed throughout the constituency. The allegation that the leaflet was calculated to prejudice the election prospects of respondent No. 2 too was denied. Likewise, respondent No. 1 denied that the different sentences of the leaflet contained statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of respondent No. 2 which was false to the knowledge of respondent No. 1. According further to the respondent, he came to know of the said leaflet only some weeks after the election was over. The said leaflet, it was added, appeared to have been got printed by someone interested in respondent No. 2 to create a ground for filing an election petition. Issue No: 10 reads as under:

"10 (a) Whether