1960 (2) TMI 75 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Construction of Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Whether exhibits P-3 and P-4 contained allegations affecting the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent.
3. Burden of proof regarding the falsehood of the statements in exhibits P-3 and P-4.
4. Evidence of publication of the leaflets by the Appellant or with his consent.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court in reversing the findings of fact by the Election Tribunal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Construction of Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The first contention raised by the Appellant was that the High Court wrongly construed Section 100(1)(b) of the Act, arguing that a corrupt practice committed by an agent without the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent should not fall within the mischief of that clause. However, the Supreme Court did not express any opinion on this question as the appeal could be disposed of on other grounds.

2. Whether exhibits P-3 and P-4 contained allegations affecting the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent:
The court examined the content of exhibits P-3 and P-4, which were leaflets published on 26th February 1957. The leaflets contained statements attributing acts of violence and murder to the first Respondent. The court held that these allegations related to the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent, as they accused him of instigating a murder and being guilty of violent acts in his political career. The court concluded that these statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the first Respondent's election, thus falling within the mischief of Section 123(4) of the Act.

3. Burden of proof regarding the falsehood of the statements in exhibits P-3 and P-4:
The High Court's judgment was scrutinized to determine whether it wrongly placed the burden of proof on the Appellant. The Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly applied Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. The first Respondent had provided evidence denying the allegations and indicating a motive for the Appellant to make false statements. The Appellant failed to provide evidence to disprove the first Respondent's assertions or to show that he believed the statements to be true. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Appellant made the allegations knowing them to be false.

4. Evidence of publication of the leaflets by the Appellant or with his consent:
The High Court discussed the evidence regarding the publication of the leaflets in paragraphs 51 and 52 of its judgment. Although the High Court did not explicitly state that the Appellant published the leaflets or did so with his consent, it accepted the evidence presented by the first Respondent. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had effectively accepted the case that the Appellant was responsible for the publication of the leaflets.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court in reversing the findings of fact by the Election Tribunal:
The Appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the Election Tribunal's findings of fact. The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 116A(1) of the Act, the High Court has the same powers, jurisdiction, and authority as it does in appeals from original decrees passed by civil courts. The High Court is entitled to re-evaluate the evidence and make its own findings. In this case, the High Court provided valid reasons for reversing the Tribunal's findings, particularly criticizing the Tribunal for not giving reasons to discard the evidence presented by the first Respondent. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's approach and upheld its decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the Appellant's election was void due to the publication of false statements in exhibits P-3 and P-4, which affected the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent and were reasonably calculated to prejudice his election prospects. The High Court's jurisdiction to reverse the Tribunal's findings was upheld, and the burden of proof was correctly applied.