Representation of the People Act, 1951, s. 123 ( 4 )--Corrupt practiceAllegations of snJugg/ing agttinst cc.-ndidate in poster-Candidate al~o called an abnoxious person-Allegations are in relation to the personal character and conduct of ca11didate within 1necning of section-Evidence Act s. 45-Experts seldom agree--Courts must form its own conclusinfls. The first respondent was the winniag candidate from an assembly constitueocy in Hissar District of Haryana State at the mid-term election held in May, 1968. The appellant who was one of the losing candidates filed an election petition urging the following grounds in its support : (I) that the poster Exhibit PWI/ 1 was against the personal character of the appellant and therefore constituted a corrupt practice v•ithin the meaning of s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (2) '!bat the religious head of the Namdhari sect issued an appeal and a farman and therefore the provisions contained ins. 123(2) were attracted; (3) Tha; the first respondent was guilty of corrupt practice of bribery by having given Rs. 20,000 in cash to one of the candidates for contesting the elec· tion. 'Ille petition was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal this Court found that the allegations in grounds Nos. (2) and (3) aforesaid were not proved by the evidence on record. Allowing the petition on ground No. (I), HELD: (i) ·rhe evidence in the present case established-first that Exhibit PWl/l wa< published, second!)' that respondent No. I got the same printCd and published. thirdly that the statement therein-to the etfect that the appellant was indulging in smuggling and was an obno:tious pen;on-was in relation to the pcr!ional character and conduct df the appellant, fourthly that the statement was false, and fifthly that the same was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election. The appeal therefore had to be accepted on the ground that respondent NJ. I was guilty of corrupt practice under sl!l:tion 123(4) of the Act. [892 H- 893 BJ (ii) It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature. The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. The signature of respondent No. 1 on the manuscript of Exhibit PWl/l wa. sufficiently proved by the evideoce of witnesses. [891 G-H] CIVIL APPELLATE ]URISDICTJON : Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1969.
