JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J.:— This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against the Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in an election petition filed by an elector named Mannalal (respondent No. 1 in this appeal), hereinafter to be described as the petitioner, for setting aside the election of the appellant Kanhaiyalal Nagori.

2. The constituency was Javad Constituency of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The poll took place on March 8, 1972 and the result was declared on March 12, 1972. There were four contesting candidates. The appellant Kanhaiyalal whowas a Congress candidate and respondent No. 1 in the election petition. obtained 25,594 votes. Virendrakumar Saklecha (for brevity Saklecha) who was a Jan Sangh candidate, being respondent No. 4 both in the election petition as well as in this appeal, obtained the second highest number of votes. viz., 23,064. Ravishankar Sharma (respondent No. 2) who was a Socialist candidate, obtained 1300 votes and Jagmohan (respondent No. 3) an independent candidate obtained 1104 votes. The last two candidates forfeited their security deposit. The appellant Kanhaiyalal was declared elected by a margin of 2530 votes.

3. Saklecha was being returned from his constituency since 1957 having won the election in that year and in the next two successive years 1962 and 1967. In the 1967 election wherein he won, there was an election petition against him. The High Court set aside the election on the ground of certain corrupt practices, but this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court in January 1972.

4. In the year 1968, Congress Government was defeated and Samyukat Vidhayak Dal (briefly S. V. D.) came into power in the State. Saklecha was the Deputy Chief Minister in that Government from July 1967 to March 1969. The S. V. D. Government fell in 1969.

5. As stated earlier the election of the appellant was challenged by an elector Mannalal by an election petition filed on April 24, 1972, alleging corrupt practices under Section 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act (briefly the Act) which reads as follows:-

123. "The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:-

x x x x x

(4) The Publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person, with the consent of a candidate or 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 candidates election."

It may be appropriate to describe from the election petition itself the allegations against the returned candidate, Kanhaiyalal Nagori;

"5. That the election of the returned candidate, respondent No. 1 is liable to be declared void and set aside on the following grounds:-

(A) That the respondent No. 1 got published through Block Congress Committee, Javad, a pamphlet entitled "Saklecha Ke Karyakal Par Ek Nazar" and it was distributed throughout the Javad constituency by the respondent No. 1 himself and by his workers and agents with his consent. The said pamphlet was printed in Shriram Press, Neemuch and the signatories to the said pamphlets are all members and important office-bearers of the Congress party and who were actively conducting the election propaganda of the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was official Congress candidate and he was also Provincial Congress Committee member representing Block Committee Javad and President Janpad Panchayat Javad. The said pamphlet is in Malvi dialect and was distributed on a large scale throughout the constituency by the candidate himself and through his workers and agents by his consent and connivance. By the said pamphlet the respondent No. 1 through his agents Parasram Agarwal of Singoli, Chosarmalji of Singoli, Bhanwaral Badolia o