JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

1. The short question, which falls for consideration in this case is, whether the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed for want of “material facts.”

2. The position in law is, well-settled that an election petition can be summarily dismissed, if the mandatory requirements of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to incorporate, material facts, in Election Petition are not complied with.

3. The facts in, brief are that respondent no. 1 was declared, elected as the member of legislative assembly (for short MLA) in the election held on 21st October, 2019 (the ‘Said Election’ for short). Petitioner filed petition for declaration, that the election of the respondent no. 1 is void and deserves to be set aside, as he committed corrupt practices as specified in Part III of Chapter VII of the Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1951.

4. The Election Commission of India declared general elections for the 2019 assembly constituency of the State of Maharashtra by Notification 27th September, 2019. The date of scrutiny of nomination papers was 8th October, 2019. The date of election was 21st October, 2019. The result of the said election was declared on 24th October, 2019.

5. The alleged corrupt practices, which returned candidate, indulged into are as under:

(a) Petitioner came across concocted and doctored video on What’sapp, on or about 8th October, 2019, wherein speech delivered by him in 2016 was deliberately and maliciously edited to portray him as an anti-national person as shown, giving slogans “Pakistan Zindabad.” The said fake video was circulated by the returned candidate on social media from 14th October, 2019 till 21st October, 2019. The said fake video was seen by large number of people of his assembly constituency.

(b) That, the returned candidate, his agent or other persons on his behalf including the leader of party of respondent no. 1, Shri Uddhay Thakarey addressed the public meeting and was part of the procession in connection with the said election on 20th October, 2019 at 9.15 p.m. which was within the period of 48 hours prior to the hours fixed for conclusion of poll, which was prohibited in terms of Section 126 of the said Act and thereby violated Clause 8.2.1 of Chapter VIII of the Model Code of Conduct, framed by the Election Commission. As a consequence, returned candidate deliberately acted in contravention of Section 126 of the said Act, and committed acts, which fall within the mischief of Section 100(1)(d)(v) of the Said Act.

6. The petitioner would assert and claim that the false and doctored video was downloaded, by Vinod Purshottam Chhatpal, from the facebook account of Mr. Budol. Vinod Purshottam Chhatpal gave CD of doctored video to the petitioner. Whereafter, Petitioner’s chief election agent lodged a written complaint. Afterwhich Saki Naka Police Station registered FIR dated 14th October, 2019 under Section 125 and 171-G of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Mr. Budol. Petitioner would further assert that, the members of Rajputana Community of his Assembly Constituency consisting of 10,000 voters believed the version of the said fake video clips and issued legal notice to the petitioner on behalf of Akhand Rajputana Sevasangh through their advocate on 17th October, 2019.

Pleadings of Corrupt Practice relating to circulation of fake video:

7. In paragraph 12 of the Election Petition, petitioner averred that “in the circumstances mentioned hereinafter, it was revealed that the said fake video clip was published by the returned candidate as he was the only beneficiary of the outcome of the circulation of such false and fake video. Petitioner would, therefore, allege that purpose of circulating fake, false and malicious news was to defame the petitioner and to paint him as an anti-social or anti-national person to deter the voters from voting in favour of the petitioner.”

8. On the grounds afore-stated, petitioner is seeking a