NARASINGH CHARAN MOHANTY versus SURENDRA MOHANTY

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 12-10-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
( 
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
NARASINGH .CHARAN MOHANTY' 
v. 
SURENDRA MOHANTY 
October 12, 1973. 
39 
\ 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, s. ~· DwiVEDI AND P. K. GoSWAMI, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-S. 123(3) and (4)-Corrupt prac-
tice--Consent what b. 
· 
' 
Practice and procedure-Pltadint!. 
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867-S. 1-Presumption that a person 
whose fUlme was printed in the newspaper was the editor-It could be rebutted. 
. 
The election of the respondent was ·challenged by the appellant on the 
ground of corrupt practices under sub-ss. (3) and (4) of s. 123 of the Repre-
sentation of the People Act, 1951. The respondent was a nominee of the Utkal 
Congre5s of which BP was the founder leader. The respondent was also the 
editor of an Oriya Daily published by the Kalinga Publications whose Chairman 
was BP. The election ·symbols of Utk.al Congress were Chatra (wheel) and 
Langala (plough). It was alleged that (i) the respondent had publi-
- shed an editorial in his paper appealing to the 
religious 
symbol 
of 
Chakra and Langala. the 
mythological~ weapons associated with Jagan-
nath and Balram the most worshipped· and esteemed deities. of Orissa for 
the furtherance of the prospects of his election and for prejudicially affecting 
the election of other candidates; (ii) BP in a public meeting appealed to the 
people invoking the religious symbol in the presence of the respondent with his 
consent and without any protest by him and that the respondent had published 
the report of the meeting in his paper and (iii) that the respondent made false 
statement of facts regarding the personal character and conduct of one of the 
defeated candidates and that this was published in the respondent's paper or 
with his consent by his subordinates. While conceding that he was the editor 
of the newspaper the respondent claimed Qlat he . was on leave at the relevant 
time and that he had nothing to do with the writing of the editorial or with the 
editing of the news reports. 
' 
Dismissing. the appeal, 
HEID: (i) Though s. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1857 
raises a presumption that a person whose name is printed in a copy of the 
newspaper was the editor of every portion of that issue, that presumption might 
.be rebutted by evidence. ·In order to rebut this presumption the respondent 
will lfave to establish that he had nothing to do with the publication of either 
the editorial or the news report or that any of them was wntten and/or publish· 
ed without his tnowledge or without his consent. [47-G-H] 
· 
D. P. Mishra v. Kamal Narain Sharma [19711 3 S.C.R. 251, held inapplica-
ble. 
· 
. · 
It is one of the accepted. principles that pleadings must contain and contain 
only a statement in a summary form of material facts on which the party bases 
hig claim or defence and facts which are merely evidence of material facts, 
though necessary to be proved at the trial, need not be pleaded; but if it is ·a 
'material fact it ·should be pleaded. In the instant case the material facts had 
been stated and any omission to set out in the peadings the evidence that had 
been led to establisb. that the respondent was not concerned with the impugned 
corrupt practice could not be looked at with suspicion. [ 48H; of9A·Bl 
(ii) Consent or agency could not be inferred from remote causes nor could 
it be inferred from mere close friendship or other relationship or political affi-
H . liation between the respondent and BP. However close the relationship, unless 
there is evidence to prove that the person publishing or writing the editorial was 
authorised by the returned candidate or he had undertaken to be responsible for 
all the publications, no consent could be inferred. Since the publication of the 
respondent's speech had not been made with his consent, that publication, even 
.· 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974) 2 S.C.R. 
assuming its contents nad been proved, did not constitute a corrupt practice. 
(52FG] 
(iii) [f amounts had been collected for any public l?urpose, asking the ~r­
son collecting those amounts of those who we.re resp(_>nsJbk ~or the1! collection, 
to give an account, could not amount to an Imputation agatnst ~e1r 
person~! 
character. 
Men in public life, particularly those who collect momes for pubhc 
or charitable purposes ought not to be sensitive when there was a 
demand to 
account for those ~mounts. lt might hurt the vanity ~r the ~go of .the .per~on 
from whom accounts w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.