Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
M. Hidayatullah, C. J. and G. P. Bhutt, J.
MAGANLAL RADHAKISHAN BAGDI - Appellant
Versus
HARI VISHNU KAMATH - Respondents
First Appeal 5 Of 1958
Decided On : 04/25/1958
ELECTION LAW - CORRUPT PRACTICES - PUBLICATION OF FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACT IN RELATION TO PERSONAL CHARACTER OR CONDUCT OF CANDIDATE - CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTING CORRUPT PRACTICE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 123 (4) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, Maganlal Bagdi, and respondent, H. V. Kamath, were candidates for election to the House of the People from the Hoshan-gabad Parliamentary Constituency in Madhya Pradesh. Appellant was a Congress Party candidate, and respondent was a Praja Socialist Party candidate. Appellant was declared duly elected, but respondent challenged the election on various grounds, including corrupt practices by appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that appellant had published a pamphlet containing false statements of fact in relation to respondent's personal character or conduct, which appellant believed to be false or did not believe to be true, and that he had made a false statement of fact in relation to respondent's personal character or conduct in a public meeting, which he believed to be false or did not believe to be true. The Tribunal also found that appellant had promised to construct a well for Harijans in consideration of their voting for Congress candidates, which constituted a corrupt practice.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent ought to have proved that S. N. Mushran, Kishorilal Palliwal, and Shrimati Sarla Devi Pathak distributed copies of the pamphlet Savdhan with the consent of the appellant or his election agent; Section 100 (1) (b) of the Act; 2. Whether the contents of the pamphlet Savdhan amount to any statement of fact in relation to the candidature of the respondent within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act; and 3. Whether the threat given by the appellant to the respondent and Niranjansingh in the public meeting of voters at Gadarwara on the 3rd March 1957, if used figuratively, did not amount to undue influence within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant's publication of the pamphlet containing false statements of fact in relation to the respondent's personal character or conduct constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123 (4) of the Act, as the appellant believed the statements to be false or did not believe them to be true. 2. The court also held that the appellant's promise to construct a well for Harijans in consideration of their voting for Congress candidates constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123 (1) of the Act, as it was done with the object of inducing the voters to vote for him and not to vote for the respondent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal's order declaring the appellant's election to be void.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter galled the Act), against the order of the Election Tribunal, Jabalpur, declaring the appellant's election to the House of the People to be void under Section 98, read with Section 100 (1) (b), of the Act.
( 2 ) THE appellant, Maganlal Bagdi, and the respondent, H. V. Kamath, were candidates for election to the House of the People from the Hoshan-gabad Parliamentary Constituency in Madhya Pradesh in the last general election. The appellant was a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party and the respondent, on behalf of the Praia Socialist Party. Polling was held on the 25th February and the 4th March, 1957, and Votes were counted on the 14th and 17th March, 1957. Since the appellant secured 84532 votes as against 59374 votes secured by the respondent, the former was declared to be duly elected on the 17th March 1957.
( 3 ) THE respondent challenged the appellant's election on various grounds by a petition under Section 81 of the Act, from which this appeal arises. The facts found by the Tribunal against the appellant are the following:
(1) That he got a pamphlet in Hindi under the heading 'chetawani' (Ex. P-1) widely distributed among the voters in various villages through his agents and also read it in a public meeting of the voters held at Gadarwara on the 3rd March 1957. The Tribunal has found that the pamphlet contained false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the respondent, which the appellant believed to be false or did not believe to be true, and accordingly its publication constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act.
(2) That he addressed a public meeting of voters held at Narsimhapur on the 19th February 1957, in which he made a false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the respondent, namely, that he was receiving lacs of dollars from America to discredit Pandit Nehru and his Government, a statement which he believed to be false or did not believe to be true, and accordingly he was guilty of a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Act; and
(3) That he addressed at public meeting along with Shrimati Sarla Devi Pathak at mouza Singhpur on the 19th February 1957 were, in consideration of the Harijans voting for the Congress candidates, they promised to construct a well for them and performed the digging ceremony on a site belonging to Vishwanathsingh (P. W. 11) and accordingly he was guilty of a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (1) of the Act. On these findings the Tribunal declared the appellant's election to be void under Section 98, read with Section 100 (1) (b), of the Act.
( 4 ) THE respondent had, inter alia, made the following averments in his petition against the appellant, namely,
1. That he got a pamphlet in Hindi under the heading 'savdhan' (Ex. P-2) widely circulated among the voters in different villages through his agents and workers, containing false statements Of fact in relation to the candidature of the respondent, which he believed to be false or did not believe to be true. The Tribunal has found that the pamphlet did not contain a statement of fact in relation to the candidature of the respondent and as such it did not fall under Section 123 (4) of the Act and as it was not circulated with the consent of the appellant, it could not constitute a ground for declaring his election to be void under Section 100 (1) (b) ibid.
2. That he and S. N. Mushran (Congress candidate to the State Assembly from Gotegaon Constituency and at present a Deputy Minister) went to mauza Imalia on the 20th February 1957 and asked the Patwari of the village, Chhidami Lal (P. W. 3), to work for the Congress candidates in the area on pain of being dismissed. The Tribunal has not accepted the testimony of Chhidami Lal for want of corroboration.
3. That he addressed a public meetin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
