9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged corrupt practice of publication of false statements relating to the personal character and conduct of the appellant. 2. Incurring of election expenses in excess of the prescribed limit. 3. Alleged disqualifications of the respondent due to a subsisting contract with the State under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Corrupt Practice of Publication of False Statements: The appellant argued that false statements were made about his personal character and conduct, which were reasonably calculated to prejudice his election prospects. These statements were made at a public meeting on June 13, 1968, and published in the weekly 'Ranchandi' on June 16, 1968. The High Court found that some of these statements were made but concluded that the appellant failed to prove they were false or believed to be false by the speakers and the respondent. The High Court's decision was based on the existence of a criminal complaint against the appellant, which provided a basis for the statements, thus falling within the ambit of bona fide statements. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, emphasizing that the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving the statements were false and believed to be false. 2. Incurring of Election Expenses in Excess of the Prescribed Limit: The appellant contended that the respondent exceeded the prescribed election expenses limit by purchasing petrol worth about Rs. 2,000. The High Court rejected this claim, noting that the respondent owned multiple vehicles and agricultural land, necessitating significant petrol consumption for non-election purposes. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reasoning, finding no evidence to link the entire petrol expenditure to election purposes. 3. Alleged Disqualifications Due to a Subsisting Contract with the State: The appellant claimed that the respondent was disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act because he was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of a company supplying electricity to the State Government. The High Court dismissed this contention, stating that the respondent, as Chairman, did not directly enter into a contract with the Government in the course of his trade or business. The Supreme Court concurred, affirming that the business of the company could not be considered the personal trade or business of the Chairman. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's findings on all issues. The appellant failed to prove the falsity of the statements or that they were believed to be false by the respondent. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence to show that the respondent's election expenses exceeded the prescribed limit or that he was disqualified under Section 9A. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
