Allegations of corrupt practice must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

1. This is an appeal under S. II6-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. The election of the appellant to Lok Sabha from the Manjeri Parliamentary constituency in Kerala was declared void by the High Court of of Kerala at Ernakulam on an election petition presented on May 3, 1977 by the first respondent who was an elector in that constituency on the ground that the returned candidate was guilty of corrupt practice mentioned in subsection (3 A) of S.123 of the Act. The appellant was a candidate of the Muslim League; the second respondent before us contested the election as as a nominee of a dissident group of the Muslim League described as "Muslim League (Opposition) supported by, as stated in the election petition, "Janata Party and Marxist Party".

3. S.123 (3A) reads:

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

XX X X

(3A) The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate."

It is said that during the election campaign the appellant made a speech in English at a place called Pullickal within the said constituency and a report of this speech translated into Malayalam appeared in the local daily CHANDRIKA in its issue of March 17,1977 which, it is alleged, falls within the mischief of S.123 (3A). The election petition contains several other allegations but as the decision of the High Court is based on this ground only, it is not necessary to refer to them. As already stated, the report of the speech (Ext.P-6) is a translated version in Malayalam of the substance of the speech delivered in English.

4. Mr. Nariman appearing for the appellant contended that as the full text of the speech was not available, it would be unsafe to draw any conclusion from the speech as reported. This contention which was also raised before the High Court is in our opinion, adequately answered in the impugned judgment. The High Court says:

"It is true that Ex-P6 does not purport to contain the full speech, but the important aspect which has to be noted is that no contention has been raised in the written statement to the effect that there were other portions in the speech of the first respondent which mitigated the evil contained in Ext. P6 when the 1st respondent gave evidence as RW.1 there was not even a distant suggestion that for want of production of the entire speech Ext. P6 could not be relied on. Again, when the petitioner gave evidence as pw.1 no question was asked to him regarding the other matters, if any, spoken by the first respondent."

The first respondent in High Court is the appellant before us. In his affidavit answering the allegations made in the election petition, the appellant admits that though it was not possible for him "at this distance of time to recall" what exactly he had stated in the speech, "the reporter's version of the speech does more or less tally" with the views expressed by the appellant in the meeting. We are therefore unable to agree that the report of the speech, Ext P6, cannot be relied on.

The speech as reported in CHANDRIKA is as follows:

"The Indian Union Muslim League President Sulaiman Sait said at Pullickal today that the Society will never forgive the anti-religious league people. It is because these people had helped the Jansangh which had killed many Muslims in Northern India and at Tellicherry and had burnt the sacred mosques. There people have also been leading the poor Muslims towards the camp of communal reactionaries and therefore society can never forgive them.

He said that these anti-religious people were by spreading lies and false propaganda blackening the fa