Case: Prabhu Narayan Vs. A. K. Srivastava

been verified as having been made on information and knowledge of the petitioner is not a requisite prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 which are applicable to the filing of an election petition.The affidavit in support of an election petition need not itself disclose the sources of information. The election petition under Section 83 (1) (b) itself must contain all the particulars that are necessary and in the affidavit in support of the petition the petitioner is required to say which of the allegations made in various paragraphs of the petition are true to his knowledge and which of them are true to his information. If any source of information has not been set out and the respondent can not answer them. Without particulars, he can always apply for better particulars. If the petition and the affidavit conform to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it cannot be said that because the sources of the information have not been given, the allegations made in the petition have to be ignored."This accords with the view which we have taken. Furthermore, according to Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act only petitions which do not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 are liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection.7. With respect to these five documents there is no dispute that they fall within the mischief of Section 123 (4) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the contents of these pamphlets, nor was it seriously contended except in the case of Ex. P-8 that they were not circulated. The only question is whether the circulation was made by the respondent or with his consent. In considering this question it is important to bear in mind that all the persons who admit that they printed these pamphlets are workers of the respondent. We will deal with the evidence in due course. It is necessary to go into the question of the printing of these pamphlets because evidence regarding it will have a bearing on their distribution either by the respondent or by his supporters with his consent. Though as many as 67 witnesses were examined and 28 of them with regard to publication, the learned trial Judge has rejected all of them.Where the question of publication and distribution is a matter to be decided on the basis of oral evidence, it is easy to dispose of them by saying that it is of persons interested in the appellant. That is why a discussion of the question regarding the printing should provide a satisfactory method of assuring oneself as to whether the distribution was made as alleged by the appellant. (The Judgment here discussed the evidence in Paras 8 to 28. The Judgment then proceeded:)29. After a thorough and anxious examination of the evidence in this case we have come to the conclusion that the people who got printed Exs. P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6 and P-8 are close supporters of the respondent. They have no special grievance against the appellant, certainly not enough to make them go to the extent of having them printed of their own. Two of them, Vijay Kumar Agarwal and Suman are mere boys of 14 and 15. They have merely been made use of by somebody and that somebody in the proved circumstances of this case could only be the respondent. We are not able to accept the evidence of Vijay Kumar Agarwal that he got the pamphlets at 11.30.p.m. on the night of the 10th March and he distributed them to a few people.Nor are we able to accept the evidence of Suman that though he gave the matter for printing on the 10th he got the pamphlets only on the 11th and so he did not distribute them. We find the evidence of P.Ws. 66 and 67 that it was given for printing on the 9th more acceptable. We are unable to accept the assertion of Ramesh Chand Jain that he got Ex. P-8 printed in order to hand it over to the Chief Minister when he was due to arrive at Damoh on the 28th of February but that he destroyed them because the Chief Minister did not turn up. All these pamphlets have been printed with a definite purpose that is of harming the chances of the appellant in the election and thereby aiding the respondent. The plan and the direction could have come only from one source that is the respondent. He has made use of his supporters, two of them young boys of 14 and 15, to get the pamphlets printed in their names so that they could take the responsibility and he may disown the responsibility for them.30. We have discussed the evidence of only non-Congress witnesses and we can see no reason to reject them. We do not agree with the learned Judge who rejected wholesale every bit of evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent. Whether the evidence of P.Ws. 66 and 67 about the part played by the respondent with regard to the pamphlets printed in the Chhabi Printing Press and of Kailash Chand Nakra with regard to the pamphlets printed in the Kailash Press are correct or not, we are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent is the guiding brain and hand behind all of them. He and his supporters must have planned all these things together. He has made his witnesses admit just enough so that a red herring might be drawn across the trail and blame may attach to them and not to him. The fact that he is an advocate or that it is the third election in which he is standing is no guarantee against his being responsible for this.31. Then there is the question of two meetings dated 4-3-1972 and 3-3-1972. We do not think it necessary to examine this branch of the case in view of the earlier findings.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]is obvious that when Section 123 (4) speaks of publication it means distribution. Mere printing of the pamphlets would not fall under Section 123 (4). Therefore the failure to give particulars of the printing cannot lead to the dismissal of the petition. Nor could evidence regarding it be shut out. The proviso to Section 83 (1) lays down that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. It does not say that the allegation of corrupt practice and particulars thereof should be given in the affidavit. The election petition contains the allegation of corrupt practices and particulars thereof.That this is the intention of the Legislature is also clear from a perusal of Form 25, which is the one prescribed under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules. The affidavit filed in support of the election petition is in accordance with that form.5.Reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent on the decision of this Court in Virendra Kumar v. Jagjivan (1972 (1) SCC 826 ) = (AIR 1974 SC 1957 ).