Shah, C. J. - (1.) In compliance with our Order decided on 13-3-1970 the High Court issued a notice to Shukla. Shukla submitted his reply contending, inter alia, that he did not publish or cause to be published the offending statements in the newspaper Mahakoshal as alleged by Sharma In paragraph 1 he submitted that:"He learnt about their publication only after and during the pendency of the election petition for declaration of the election of Shri D P. Mishra as void. The person in sole charge of the newspaper was Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' whose name has been printed as the Editor. The declaration under Rule 8, Form VI prescribed under the Press and Registration of Books Act (No. XXV of 1867) for the year 1963 shows that the said Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' and not the opposite party (Shukla) was the editor at the material time. x x x x At the time of his appointment the said Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' had insisted that there would be no interference by the opposite party (Shukla) in the conduct of the newspaper".
(2.) Several witnesses were examined before the High Court in support of the case that Shukla was instrumental in publishing and distributing the offending statements Annexures III - and III in the daily newspaper Mahakoshal of which Shukla was the editor, printer and publisher. Some witnesses who had been previously examined were recalled for examination Shukla and Tarangi were also examined at the hearing.
(3.) At the hearing of the appeal and in the proceedings for naming Shukla, Sharma the petitioner who instituted the election petition took no interest. But two persons who were permitted to intervene in the proceeding took upon themselves the defence of the appeal and also to prosecute the proceeding after it stood remanded to the High Court.;