9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to election of respondent No. 1 to Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly Pandhurna constituency based on publication and circulation of defamatory leaflet.
Summary: The appeal was filed against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment dismissing the election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the Legislative Assembly. The main issue pressed in the appeal was regarding the publication and circulation of a defamatory leaflet aimed at prejudicing the election prospects of another candidate, respondent No. 2. The appellant alleged that the leaflet contained false and defamatory statements about respondent No. 2's personal character and conduct, which were attributed to respondent No. 1 or his agents. The High Court dismissed the election petition primarily on the grounds of lack of evidence and failure to prove the falsity of the contents of the leaflet. In response to the allegations, respondent No. 1 denied any involvement in the publication of the leaflet and stated that he had no connection with it. The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove that the contents of the leaflet were false to the knowledge of respondent No. 1 or that he did not believe them to be true. Consequently, no corrupt practice as defined in the Representation of the People Act was established. The High Court also found issues related to the wide circulation of the leaflet and the involvement of specific individuals to be inconsequential in the absence of proof of corrupt practice. During the appeal, the appellant sought to introduce a photostat copy of the manuscript of the leaflet as evidence, alleging that it was written by respondent No. 1. However, the High Court refused to admit the photostat copy as secondary evidence due to insufficient grounds provided by the appellant. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the appellant failed to establish a basis for introducing the photostat copy as evidence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proving the falsity of statements in a defamatory publication to establish corrupt practice under the law. Since there was no evidence on record to demonstrate the falsity of the leaflet's contents, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to dismiss the election petition. Ultimately, the appeal was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed with costs.
|
