Judgment

AHMADI, J.:- The appellant filed an Election Petition No. 12 of 1985 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under Sections 80, 81, 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the R.P. Act) challenging the election of respondent No. 1, Dev Raj Negi from Kinnaur (scheduled Tribe) Assembly Constituency to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The appellant and respondent No. 1 were the only two candidates in the field. The appellant contested the election as an independent candidate whereas respondent No. 1 was fielded as a candidate of the Congress (I) party. At the said election the total number of votes polled were 24, 536 out of which 834 were declared invalid. The appellant secured 10,843 votes while respondent No. 1 secured 12,859 votes. Respondent No. 1 was thus declared elected from the said constituency on 28th May, 1985 by a margin of 2,016 votes. The appellant alleges that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally committed certain corrupt practices by levelling accusations concerning him which were false to their knowledge and which they believed to be false. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 indulged in acts of corrupt practices with the consent of respondent No. 1 On account of their having resorted to corrupt practices, the result of the election was materially affected. According to the appellant respondent No. 2 with the consent of respondent No. 1 published and distributed posters wherein false allegations tarnishing his image were made with a view to prejudice the minds of the voters against him. Further, alleges the appellant, the Chief Minister, Virbhadra Singh, toured the State between 11th and 23rd May, 1985 and made speeches at various places in the constituency of the appellant to the effect that if the voters from that constituency did not vote in favour of the Congress (I) candidate the existing projects will not be executed and new ones will not be undertaken in that constituency. The Chief Minister thus acted as the agent of respondent No. 1 and made the spechees in the presence of the latter which were in the nature of veiled threats to the voters that if they did not vote for the Congress (I) candidate their constituency will suffer. The learned Judge of the High Court observed that in case the publication of the posters, such as Exhibit P1, is proved to have been made with the consent of respondent No. 1 or his agent and the facts stated therein are shown to be false in relation to the personal character and conduct of the appellant and such statements are shown to have prejudiced the prospects of the appellant then such acts on the part of respondent No. 1 and his agent would amount to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the R.P. Act.

2. Issues were framed on 8th January, 1986. In view of the passage of time the only issues which have relevance are those concerning corrupt practice which are three in number, namely:

"1. Whether the respondent No. 1 is guilty of having committed a corrupt practice of bribery as alleged in para. 7(a) (i) to (vii) of the petition?

2. Whether the respondent No. 1 has committed a corrupt practice of undue influence as alleged in para. 7(a)(vii) to (xviii) of the petition?

3. Whether the respondents or their agents or other person, with the consent of the candidate, published a statement of fact which is false and which the respondents either believed to be false or do not believe to be true in relation to the personal character of the petitioner and such statement was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioners election, as alleged in para 8 of the petition? If so, whether the same is a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?"

In this behalf the allegation was that the poster Exh. P-1 was got printed at the instance of respondent No. 2 at the printing press of PW 68 Dinesh Kumar which allegation was denied by