CHHANGANI, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116A of theRepresentation of the People Act, 1951, (herein -after, to be referred to as the Act) by Badri Prasad,an unsuccessful election petitioner, against the orderof the Election Tribunal, Alwar, dated May 31,1963, dismissing his election petition No. 92 of1962. The petitioner Badri Prasad was a contesting candidate for a seat in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Bansur Constituency. Therewere six -other contesting candidates including therespondent Satis Kumar, Sharma. Election washeld in February 1962 and the counting of votestook plate on February 26, 1962. The votes secured by the various candidates were as follows : - - 1.Shri Satish Kumar Sharma183972.Shri Badri Prasad Gupta121483.Shri Bhawani Shanker2614.Shri Ram Narain4145.Shri Shiv Charan8106.Shri Sada Ram8387.Shri Heer Lal608 The rspondent Satish Kumar Shama was declared duly elected from the aforesaid assembly constituency by the Returning Officer. The petitioner Badri Prasad submitted an application under section 80 of the Act to the Election Commissioner of New Delhi, Challenging the validity of the election of the respondent. In his petition, he had taken a number of grounds enumerated in para 5(a), (aa), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) but during the hearing of the appeal he relied only on two instances of corrupt practices detailed in para 5 (a). It is, therefore, unnecessary to set forth the various grounds of corrupt practices relied upon by the petitioner in the election petition and it would suffice to say that the petitioner -appellant's case surviving for consideration at this stage is that the respondent - the successful candidate has shortly before the polling of the votes published two leaflets mentioned at serial number 1 and 2 which are marked E. 6 and Ex. 10 containing stat4ements of acts with regard tot eh personal character or conduct of the petitioner Badri Prasad which were false and which the respondent Satish Kumar believed to be false or did not believe to be true and that the statement. Were calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner Badri Prasad at the election.
(2.) THE petition was referred for trial by the Election Commissioner to the Election Tribunal, Alwar, under section 86 of the Act. The respondent denied the allegations of corrupt practices made against him. He admitted that the bulletins Nos. 1 and 2 as also two others Nos. 3 and 4 were got printed and published by him. His defence, however, is that the passages contained in the documents complained against are neither statements of fact nor they relate to the personal character of conduct of the petitioner. Such passages were neither false nor the respondent believed them to be false. The petitioner's case further is that what was alleged in these bulletins was believe by the respondent to be true on the basis of informations received from various sources inlcuding many new -papers, reports, pamphlets and speeches of prominent persons. According to the respondent the allegations were against the corruption and demoralization in the ranks of Congress party and the functioning of the administration under the said party in general. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as 59 issues, the relevant issues for the purposes of this appeal being Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 9, which read as under: - - (3) Whether the statements contained in bulletins 1 to 4 enumerated in the table given in para 5(a)(i) are false and the respondent believed them to be false or did not believe to be true? (5) Whether the objected portions of bulletins 1 to 9 as given in Schedule 'A' are statemens of fact and relate to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner? (6) Whether the said statements were calculated to prejudice the prospect of petitioner's election and actually misled a large number of electors? (9) Whether the actions of the respondent as alleged in para 5(i)(a) amount ot corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act?
(3.) THE petitioner examined 38 witnesses and produced 38 documents, while the respondent examined 71 witnesses and produced 104 documents.;