- (1.) This election appeal is directed against the order of the High court of Kerala, dated 19/12/1977 by which the election of the appellant Haji G. H. Mohammad Koya has been set aside and he has been disqualified from taking part in the elections for a period of six years under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (here in after called the Act).
(2.) For the purple of brevity we shall refer to the respondent-petitioner as. the petitioner and Haji C. H. Mohammad Koya as the appellant.
(3.) In the general election held to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala on 20/03/1977 the petitioner and the appellant were the contesting candidates from No. 34 Malappuram constituency. The counting of votes took place on 20/03/1977 and the appellant was declared elected on the same date. The total votes polled were 56,276. The appellant secured 39,362 votes and thus defeated the petitioner by a margin of 20,000. 00 votes'. Aggrieved by the election results, the petitioner filed an election petition in the High court alleging that the appellant had committed various corrupt practices falling within the ambit of S. 123 (3) , (3a) and (4) of the Act. It was mainly alleged that before the elections, the appellant was the Chief Editor of a Malayalam daily paper called Chandrika which was the official organ of the Muslim League. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the appellant held shares worth Rs. 3 lakhs in the printing and publishing company which published Chandrika. This paper, according to the peti- tioner, contains several articles, extracts of speeches and cartoons which tended to ask the Muslims to vote for the appellant on religious and communal grounds and also promoted ill-will and hatred between two classes of citizens, namely, the Janasangh and the Muslim League. It appears, however, that at the hearing the petitioner confined his case only to the corrupt practices alleged by him under S. 123 (3a) of the Act. In this connection, the learned Judge of the High court observed as follows : Though in the petition Ss. (3) , (3a) and (4) of S. 123 of the Act are specifically referred to, from the evidence tendered in the case it would appear that applicability of Ss. (3a) of S. 123 alone falls for decision.;