RAWAL NARENDRA SINGH Vs. KAMLA BENIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 116-A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be called the Act ). In the last general election the appellant Rawa Narendra Singh was declared elected to the Rajasthan Legislature Assembly from the Dudu Constituency which was a double member constituency one seat being reserved for the schedule caste. There were three other contesting candidates named Smt. Kamla Beniwal, Shri Ladu Ram and Shri Rameshwar Prasad Arya at the election besides the appellant. Shri Laduram was declared elected to the reserved seat. Smt. Kamla Beniwal and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Arya who was scheduled caste candidate were declared defeated. Smt. Kamla Beniwal Respondent No. 1 in this appeal presented an election petition under sec. 81 of the Act for setting aside the election of the appellant. She challenged the election of the appellant on various grounds; but eventually she res-ricted her ease only to the allegation that the appellant published and distributed a leaflet in Hindi which forms Appendix 'b' of the election petition and which is referred as leaf-let'b'. According to Respondent No. 1 it contained a statement of fact which was false and which the appellant believed to be false in relation to her personal conduct, and this amounted to a corrupt practice within he meaning of sec. 123 (4) of the Act. The appellant admitted the publication and distribution of the leaf-let but he denied that it consained any false statement relating to the personal conduct of Smt. Kamla Beniwal. The Tribunal held that the appellant had committed a corrupt practice by distributing the leaf-let in question. It accepted the election petition and declared the election of the appellant to the Rajasthan Assembly from Dudu constituency to be void.

(2.) IN this appeal it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the election tribunal that the appellant committed corrupt practice within the meaning of sec. 123 (4) of the Act is wrong both in fact and in law;

(3.) LEARNED counsel for Respondent No. 1 has argued that it was at the instance of the appellant that the Arts Collge, Jobner was closed and that it was only to influence the voters that the appellant laid the charge of the closing of the College on her. Attention in this connection was invited to the letter Ex. P. 2 dated the 31st of October, 1953 written by the appellant to the Secretary, Education Department. In it is mentioned that the appellant who was the ex-proprietor of the Arts College, Jobner, had no sentimental objection if that institution was closed immediately. The appellant had in his evidence stated that Shri Bhagwat Sinh Mehta the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan told him that he was opposing the closure of the Jobner College only on sentimental ground and he had written Ex. P. 2 in order to convey his opinion that he would have no objection that the teaching of such subjects may be closed in which the numbers of teachers and taught were practically the same. The letter Ex. P. 2 does not convey the impression that it was at the instance of the appellant that the Arts College was closed. He only mentioned that he had no sentimental objection which means that the State was contemplating the closing of the college and he was asked to waive his objection to its closure. This letter does not in any way help the case of Respondent No. 1 as in the leaf-let 'b' only the fact of the closure of the Arts College is mentioned and it was a fact that it was ordered to be closed by the Government of Rajasthan. We do not think that Ex. P. 2 makes any difference in the decision of the appeal, at least so far as we have held that there was no false statement in the leaf-let 'b' relating to the personal conduct of Respondent No. 1.