( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by the unsuccessful election petitioner (defeated candidate) for the Loksabha from the Parliamentary constituency of Mahasamund in the general election of 1962. The ground alleged was primarily of corrupt practices by the successful candidate-respondent No. 1, practices coming under Section 123 (4) of the Act, by the publication and circulation by that candidate himself, and with his consent, by his agents and others, of the pamphlet (annexure I) at different places in the constituency during the second and the third weeks of February on approximately the dates mentioned in the petition and in the evidence. The Tribunal found that the contents of the petition did not amount to statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner calculated to prejudice his prospects in the election; it dismissed the petition, though it held at the same time that the publication had been done by the successful candidate himself and also by his agents and others. Hence this appeal, which has been contested by the respondent No. 1. The other respondent, that is, defeated candidates other than the petitioner-appellant have not appeared or otherwise taken any interest.

( 2 ) THE points for decision are the following: firstly, the preliminary point of limitation involving the straight question whether an appellant under Section 116-A is entitled while computing the limitation to deduct the time taken in the obtaining of copies in the manner provided in Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, whether the pamphlet (annexure 1) 25000 copies of which were admittedly printed by one Tikamchand jain and a large number of which were admittedly distributed in different parts of the constituency was, (a) published at certain places by respondent No. 1 himself, and (b) elsewhere by his agents and others with his consent. Thirdly, whether the statement in the last paragraph of the pamphlet -

"in the Praja Samajwadi conference held at Baitul Shri khubchand Baghel was the President of the Reception committee. For the sum of Rs. 16000-00 that had been collected for the said conference, Khubchand Baghel has not rendered accounts even though the committee has repeatedly asked for that. Where has the money gone?"

amounts to a corrupt practice as set out in Section 123 (4 ). Fourthly, whether the statement in the penultimate paragraph of the same pamphlet -"out of selfishness this very Shri Khubchand Baghel made false and filthy allegations -- allegations about the most honourable and respected leader Shri Ravi Shankar Siiukla (father of the successful candidate) which allegations were printed from time to time in the communist paper of Bombay called Blitz. There was a suit for damages for defamation in course of which opportunity was afforded to Shri Baghel to prove their truth but he turned back with the result recently the said Blitz had on the 26th January 1962 to publish an unconditional apology lor publishing these false and fraudulent allegations by this leader. But then Shri Baghel is hardened in this habit (adat se lachar hain) and also knows that his very political existence depends on these baseless things. "

is also a corrupt practice as set out in Section 123 (4 ). In connection with the last two issues, the parties have argued about the burden of proof in this class of cases, the manner in which it has to be discharged, the purport of the definition of corrupt practice in Section 123 (4) and the fine, if it is possible to draw one, between statements relating to persona! conduct and character, and political conduct. There were quite a number of formal issues before the Tribunal which were lumped by it under headings III (a) to (c), IV (a)and (b); but the Tribunal's decision that they were of no consequence has not been here challenged by either party.

( 3 ) EVEN more than in the usual run of election disputes the presen