Corrupt practice by defamatory imputation was not proved where remote allegations, weak testimony, and unsupported reports failed to establish the charge.

Corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was not proved because the alleged 1978 material was too remote from the election and no continuous link was shown between earlier imputations and the campaign in question. The doctrine of inuendo was rejected since the material did not clearly identify the appellant as the target of the statements. The 1980 allegations also failed: the oral testimony was unreliable and contradictory, the newspaper reports were second-hand and unsupported by direct evidence, and the admitted speech text did not itself impute the alleged murder to the appellant. The High Court's finding was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant proved corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the basis of the alleged 1978 and 1980 statements, speeches, news items, and documents.

Analysis: The allegations relating to 1978 were held too remote and unconnected with the election in question, with no continuous link shown between the earlier imputations and the impugned election campaign. The doctrine of inuendo was rejected because the material did not clearly identify the appellant as the person targeted by the alleged statements. As to the 1980 allegations, the oral evidence of interested witnesses was found unreliable and contradictory, and the newspaper reports were treated as insufficient proof because they were second-hand accounts unsupported by direct evidence of the speeches. The admitted speech text also did not contain any statement connecting the appellant with the alleged murder, and could not be turned into a defamatory imputation by inuendo.

Conclusion: The charge of corrupt practice under Section 123(4) was not proved and the finding of the High Court was upheld.

---