TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (2) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n various grounds.. One of the grounds was that exhibits P-3 and P-4, two leaflets, were published and circulated on 26th February, 1957, either by or at the instance of the Appellant with false allegations attacking the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent and, therefore, the election was void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act). It is not necessary to particularize the other allegations as nothing turns upon them in this appeal. The Appellant filed objections to the petition, but the other Respondents did not take any interest in the proceedings. In the objections filed by the Appellant, he denied that he either published or circulated the said leaflets and also pleaded that the allegations in the said documents did not amount to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the Act. The Election Tribunal held that the said leaflets did not contain allegations affecting the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent and that there was no evidence to establish that they were published and distributed directly or with the consent of the Appellant. On the basis of that finding the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds. 4. The next question turns, upon the construction of exhibits P-3 and P-4, the two leaflets published on 26th February, 1957. One Narayanaswamy was done to death on 24th February, 1957, in Chintamani Town. The first Respondent claimed that the deceased belonged to the Congress Party, while the Appellant claimed that he belonged to the Communist Party. The election was scheduled to be held on 4th March, 1957. Exhibit D-62 purports to be a printed Tamil pamphlet published under the signature of the Secretary, Kolar District Congress Committee. It is stated therein as follows: "Hunt of men by Communist goondas at Chintamani. Congress volunteers terribly murdered. Countless Congress people terribly wounded. Congress Office attacked and looted. Havoc of Communists. Hunt of men by Communist goonda people at Market Shandy--shops looted." 5. It is said that to offset the insinuations made in this pamphlet, exhibits P-3 and P-4 were published on 26th February, 1957. Both exhibits P-3 and P-4 were published in Kanada. The leaflets claimed the deceased Narayanaswamy as a Communist and described in detail as to how the incident ending in the death of Narayanaswamy took....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at he also indulged in organised wicked acts during the municipal elections and that he was guilty, of violent acts during his political career. The question is whether these allegations fall within the mischief of Section 123(4) of the Act. Section 123(4) of the Act reads: "The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, or retirement from contest, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election." 8. Do the aforesaid allegations refer to the personal character and conduct of Anjaneya Reddy who was a candidate for the election. The words "personal character or conduct" are so clear that they do not require further elucidation or definition. The character of a person may ordinarily be equated with his mental or moral nature. Conduct connotes a person's actions or behaviour. The said acts attributed to the first Respondent certainly relate to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant sections of the Indian Evidence Act dealing with burden of proof are Sections 101 and 102. Under Section 101 thereof, "Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person." Section 102 of the said Act, on the other hand, says, "The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side." Burden of proof has two distinct meanings, viz., (i) the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading, and (ii) the burden of proof as a matter of adducing evidence. Section 101 deals with the former and Section 102 with the latter. The first remains constant and the second shifts. In the present case, the burden of proof, in the first sense, certainly lies on the first Respondent; but he has examined himself and has specifically stated in the evidence that he has neither committed the murder nor has he been guilty of any violent acts in his political career. He also placed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upport the allegations made against the first Respondent in exhibits P-3 and P-4. The observations of the learned judges are correct. In the result, we must accept the finding of the High Court that the allegations in exhibits P-3 and P-4 were made by the Appellant knowing full well that they were not true. 12. We do not find any force in the contention that exhibits P-3 and P-4 were published as a counterblast to exhibit D-62 and, therefore, the said documents are not hit by Section 123(4) of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 123 defining a corrupt practice is not conditioned by any proviso to the effect that it would cease to be a corrupt practice if the statement was made to counteract the rival statement of an opponent. It is unqualified by any such proviso. If the conditions of that sub-section are satisfied, it is irrelevant to enquire whether the statement has been a counterblast to another. That apart, there is no reliable evidence on record--none has been brought to our notice--to show that exhibits P-3 and P-4 were published to counteract the allegations made in exhibit D-62. 13. The next contention is that there is no definite finding by the High Court that exhibits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o stated is obviously untenable. Under Section 116A(1) of the Act, "an appeal shall lie from every order made by a Tribunal under Section 98 or Section 99 to the High Court of the State in which the Tribunal is situated." Sub-section (2) thereof says "the High Court shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have the same powers, jurisdiction and authority and follow the same procedure, with respect to an appeal under this Chapter as if the appeal were an appeal from an original decree passed by a civil court situated within the local limits of its civil appellate jurisdiction." It is, therefore, manifest that the jurisdiction of the High Court in the disposal of such an appeal is similar to that it has in the disposal of appeals against original decrees. No doubt, this is subject to the provisions the Act and no provision has been brought to our notice which curtails that jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, when an appeal is filed, the entire case is reopened in the appellate court. It is true that there is a long established practice regulating the procedure in disposing of an appeal; but that practice does not touch the jurisdiction of an appellate ....