LALIT KISHORE CHATURVEDI Vs. JAGDISHPRASADTHADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Election of appellant to the Rajasthan State Assembly from constituency Kota was invalidated by the High Court for being guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-sections (2) and (4) of S. 123 of Representation of the People Act of 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) Basis for it was only a leaflet got printed by the appellant, the English translation of which is extracted below:

(3.) Did it relate to personal character or conduct of the Congress candidate, the primary ingredient of S. 123(4) of the Act If it was then, was it false And false to the knowledge of appellant Did it amount to undue influence resulting in interference with free exercise of electoral right under S. 123(2) According to the High Court it did as words their "inke" and they "inhone" used in the leaflet referred to the personal conduct of the candidate, and not to the party. The High Court further found that looking to the margin by which the appellant succeeded, i.e. 579 votes, the statement made was reasonably calculated to prejudice prospect of the Congress candidate. Even first part of the leaflet, that is, the extract of the speech, purported to have been delivered by the Congress M.P. was held to be false as it could not be established that any meeting took place. Election was found invalid, also because of undue influence exercised by making false representation that if Congress candidate was elected the houses shall be erased. Whether the High Court was justified in concluding that the statement in leaflet was false even though Shri Dhariwal from whose speech the purported extract was got printed, and Smt. Premlata the other Speaker were not examined and the statement of the appellant and his witnesses, DW-7 and DW-8 were disbelieved on an erroneous application of ratio in Surinder Singh v. Har Diyal Singh AIR 1985 SC 89 as evidence led by the appellant was not for proving corrupt practice, need not be gone into if the claim of the appellant that on the pleadings in the election petition filed under S. 83 read with S. 100 of the Act no triable issue arose is well founded, then the petition was liable to be dismissed under 0. 7 R. 11, Code of Civil Procedure. It is liable to be dismissed, even now in appeal as is clear from ratio in Hardwari Lal v. Karam Singh (1972) 2 SCR 742 if it is found that pleadings were insufficient or they were lacking in material particulars.