(1) This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to be hereinafter referred to as the "Act". It arised from the decision of the Election Tribunal, Mysore, in Election Petition No. 48/62 on its file.

(2) The appellant is the returned candidate in the general elections held in 1962, from the Mandya Constituency to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly. The first respondent herein was the petitioner before the Tribunal. He is one of the voters in that Constituency. The second respondent was one of the defeated candidates. He was the Congress nominee. The third respondent was yet another candidate who contested the general elections without success. The tribunal set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he was guilty of corrupt practices falling under Section 123(4) of the "Act" during the Election. It declared the second respondents having been elected despite the fact that he had secured less voters than the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court.

(3) Polling in the Mandya Constituency took place on 22-2-1962. The results of the elections were announced on 26-2-1962. The appellant secured 23,299 votes, the second respondent 22,639 and the third respondent 3,304. Consequently, the appellant was declared elected. The first respondent herein, who is a voter in that Constituency, filed the election petition challenging the validity of the election of the appellant on various grounds.

(4) The Tribunal rejected all the grounds put forward on behalf of the petitioner excepting on. It upheld the petitioner's contention that the appellant and his supporters with his consent had published during the election Exhibit P-1, which according to the Tribunal contained a false statement viz., that the second respondent worked against the congress nominee in the Mandya Constituency in 1957 general election. The Tribunal further held that the appellant believed that statement to be false or at any rate he did not believe it to be true. It also held that the statement in question related to the personal character or conduct of the second respondent and the same was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the second Respondents election. It is this finding that is challenged before this Court. The other grounds put forward in the Election Petition were found against the petitioner. These findings were not challenged in this court.

(5) Though the Tribunal had declared the Second respondent as having been duly elected, Sri E.S. Venkataramaih, his learned Counsel, very appropriately did not support that part of the facts found the second respondent could not have been declared as elected. In view of this concession, it is unnecessary to go into that aspect of the case. All that we have to see is whether the Tribunal's finding as regards the corrupt practice mentioned above is legally sustainable.

(6) Sri. M.K. Nambiar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, urged that the allegations contained in the Election Petition as originally filed were wholly insufficient to make out the corrupt practice found against his client and consequently Issue No. 2 should not have been raised by the Tribunal. That issue reads:

"Does the petitioner prove that the Pamphlet enclosure No. 1 (Ex. P-1) to election petition was published by the persons mentioned in Schedule "A" of the election Petition and thereby the said person committed corrupt practice coming under Section 123(4) of the R.P. Act, 1951?"

(7) The allegations relating to Exhibit P-1 are found in paragraph-9 of the Election Petition. Before the amendment they read thus :

"The first act of the first respondent and his friends were, his agents in the course of election(as they all had worked for him with his consent and approval) was to publish pamphlets containing false and defamatory statements calculated to bring the second respondent into ridicule and in the eye of the voters