JUDGMENT : M. Hidayatullah, C.J.I. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, December 4, 1967, declaring the election of the appellant void under Section 100(l)(b) of the Representation of the People Act. 2. The appellant Ram Kishan (described in this judgment as the returned candidate) contested the last General Election to the Lok Sabha from the Hoshiarpur Parliamentary Constituency. There were six other candidates including the first respondent, Jai Singh, a retired General of the Indian Army, who was the election petitioner. He will be referred to as the election petitioner in this judgment. The returned candidate represented the Congress Party and the election petitioner, although an independent candidate, had support of the Bhartiya Jan Sangh. The poll took place on February 19, 1967, the votes were counted on the 21st and 22nd February, 1967. The returned candidate obtained 95,877 votes and the election petitioner was his closest rival obtaining 94,366 votes. The result of the poll was declared on February 23, 1967 and Ram Kishan was declared elected. The election petitioner then filed the election petition on April 10, 1967 alleging corrupt practices on the part of the returned candidate. The corrupt practices charged against him included publication of a poster containing statements of facts which were either false or were not believed to be true in relation to the personal character and the conduct of the election petitioner and being statements calculated to prejudice his prospects in the election, There were other grounds also but us the High Court has decided that ibis corrupt practice was, in fact, committed by the candidate or his agent with the consent of the candidate, and we are satisfied that this conclusion is right both in fact and in law, we need not mention the other allegations in the election petition. 3. The poster in question is marked Ex. PW 10/6. It was a large poster in Urdu written in large characters and read as follows: "Who is an enemy of National Integrity? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who will starve the nation? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who disturbs the peace of the country? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who betrays the country? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who instigates communalism? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who has burnt alive human beings in the country? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who poisons the children with communalism in the country? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who will starve the nation? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who disturbs the peace of the country? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who betrays the country? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who instigates communalism? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who has burnt alive human beings in the country? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who poisons the children with communalism in the country? Jana Sanghi Firqa Who is an enemy of democracy in the country? Jana Sanghi Firqa VOTERS Please think over and beware of these tiers communalists, traitors men of no principle and cheats and tell them that we do not want a traitor general who is a deserter of every battle field. Hence vote for a tested congress candidate Comrade Ram Kishan and give him success. Congress opponents are misleading the public with their baseless allegations. The fire of the pyre of alive persons of Panipat will burn these cunning to ashes. KRISHAN PARSHAD CHOPRA, Election Incharge Comrade Ram Kishan Congress, Candidate Parliament." That such a poster was, in fact, issued by Krishan Parshad Chopra (RW 27), who was incharge of the election of the returned candidate, is not denied before us. It is, however, contended that it was so done without the consent or knowledge of the returned candidate and that therefore the requirements of Section 123(4) of the Act have been made out and the case does not fall within Section 100(1)(b) of the Act under which the election of the returned candidate can be declared void. Before we consider the evidence relating to the publication of the poster and the facts on which the consent of the returned candidate can be inferred we may refer to the law applicable to the case. Section 100, sub-section (1) of the Representation of the People Act provides: 100. Before we consider the evidence relating to the publication of the poster and the facts on which the consent of the returned candidate can be inferred we may refer to the law applicable to the case. Section 100, sub-section (1) of the Representation of the People Act provides: 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void,- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion (a) * (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or * * * the High Court shall declare the election of the retained candidate to be void." The corrupt practice on the part of the returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent renders void the election of the successful candidate. "Corrupt practice" is defined by Section 123 of the Act and by fourth sub-section the following is included: "(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, 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 of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election. * * * Explanation. -(1) In this section the expression `agent' includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate." 4. * * * Explanation. -(1) In this section the expression `agent' includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate." 4. This election petitioner under these two sections was required to establish (a) that the corrupt practice consisting of the publication of the poster was by the returned candidate or his agent (which term includes any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with consent of the returned candidate) or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his agent, (b) that it consisted of any statement of which was false or which was either believed to be false or was not to be true, (c) the statement was in relation to the personal character or conduct of the candidate, and (d) the statement was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of the election of such candidate. It is obvious, and in fact it cannot for a moment be doubted, that to call soldier a deserter from the field of action and to be a traitor to the country, is `a calumny upon the character and conduct of such a person. It is equally true that such a statement, if broadcast, is likely to prejudice the prospect of such a candidate's election because every voter will hold him in contempt and rather than vote for him would shun him. Thus the only question is whether the publication was done by the candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent and whether the statement which was incorporated in the poster, was either believed to be false or was not believed to be true. The High Court has found all these points against the returned candidate and the only question in this appeal is whether the High Court has erred in its conclusion. 5. The poster was prepared by Krishan Parshad Chopra (RW 27) as a counter-blast to the posters issued and published by the supporters of the Jan Sangh. This Krishan Parshad was admittedly the person incharge of the election of the returned candidate. He was previously also incharge of election in the first three general elections. 5. The poster was prepared by Krishan Parshad Chopra (RW 27) as a counter-blast to the posters issued and published by the supporters of the Jan Sangh. This Krishan Parshad was admittedly the person incharge of the election of the returned candidate. He was previously also incharge of election in the first three general elections. The returned candidate admitted that he had left the conduct of the election to Krishan Parshad Chopra. Krishan Parshad had the poster printed through one Sohan Lal the Chopra Printing Press. Sohan Lal (PW 10). who is the owner of Bhapa Printing Press, Jullundur, however, admitted that Ex. PW 10/6 was printed at the instance of Krishan Parshad Chopra, the person incharge of the election of the returned candidate and that Ex. PW 10/3 was the bill for the poster of which 1000 copies were printed. Chopra had shown him a letter appointing him as the person incharge of the election by the returned candidate and he questioned Chopra why such a poster was being printed. He was told that as the other side was getting strongly-worded posters printed, Chopra was getting this poster printed as a reply. Numerous witnesses have come to prove that the poster was, in fact, published, although Mr S. V. Gupte on behalf of the returned candidate contended that we should not believe them on this point because their testimony regarding the oral statements to the same effect at the same meeting was not accepted by the High Court and the witnesses were generally characterised as untrustworthy. We see no reason not to accept the testimony about publication because the returned candidate himself admitted that he had seen the posters. We are, therefore, satisfied that a poster charging the election petitioner with cowardice and desertion on the field of battle and betrayal of his own country was not only got printed but was also published. 6. The only questions are whether this was a statement of fact which was believed to be false or was not believed to be true. An attempt was made by Krishan Parshad Chopra to establish that he had made enquiries and also read a book in which military career of the Indian Generals was said to be given. According to his reports and the book the election petitioner had taken no part in any battle. An attempt was made by Krishan Parshad Chopra to establish that he had made enquiries and also read a book in which military career of the Indian Generals was said to be given. According to his reports and the book the election petitioner had taken no part in any battle. Krishan Parshad further went on to say that when China and Pakistan attacked India in 1962 and 1965, the election petitioner had not offered his services as a General, nor had he volunteered to work in the defence of the country. He thus attempted to establish that the allegation was, in fact, true and was so believed by him to be true. The High Court has not accepted this evidence. The book in question (said to be General Kaul's well-known book) cannot be assumed to be such a dependable document that if it does not mention the name of a particular General it can be safely concluded that that General had taken no part in any battle. The conduct of the election petitioner in not offering his services may be explainable on various grounds such as health, domestic and family circumstances and the like. Such conduct cannot always be regarded as a betrayal of the country or as indicating cowardice. There was thus no reason for issuing a poster and it is obvious that the persons who issued the poster either stated a fact which was false or which they did not believe to be true. In other words, this means that a corrupt practice was, in fact, practised. 7. The next question is whether this was done with the consent of the returned candidate. Here the evidence is not direct and in fact can seldom be direct. The conclusion is reached by the High Court on a reasonable view of all the circumstances of the case. These circumstances are, in our opinion, quite cogent to lead to the conclusion that the publication was done with the consent of the returned candidate. To begin with, as we have already stated, the returned candidate admitted that he had left the full direction of his election campaign to Krishan Parshad Chopra who had successfully worked for him in the first three General Elections. To begin with, as we have already stated, the returned candidate admitted that he had left the full direction of his election campaign to Krishan Parshad Chopra who had successfully worked for him in the first three General Elections. This itself may be taken as an approval of what Krishan Parshad did because if a person trusts another and leaves the matter in the latter's hand he cannot then turn round and say that some act of his was without his consent provided other circumstances point to the fact that his consent must have been in some way forthcoming. These circumstances are supplied in this case by a number of facts. Krishan Parshad said that he had been instructed that there should be no propaganda against moral principles or law, nor should it be untrue nor should it injure feelings of others. The returned candidate stated that his instructions to him were that no obscene propaganda should be carried on and nothing false should be stated and the personal character of any candidate should not be assailed. There is some difference in the two versions. Krishan Parshad Chopra admitted that he did not know the election law and, therefore, he apparently did not understand that the instructions prohibited the assailing of private character and conduct of the opposing candidates. If he had rightly understood the instructions and knew the consequences of making such aspersions it is reasonable to think that he would have avoided them. 8. But this is not the end of the matter. PW 27 (Chander Bhushan Rai) stated that the posters had begun to appear one week before the date of the poll. A large number of witnesses stated that they appeared in several parts of the constituency which consisted of as many as 8 Assembly constituencies. No doubt the opposite party must have been pulling down or obliterating the posters as soon as they went up but it was equally probable that new posters must have been hung as soon as the others were removed. In fact, the returned candidate himself stated that he had seen the posters 5 or 7 days before the poll. PW 27 was not cross-examined and is corroborated by the returned candidate. In fact, the returned candidate himself stated that he had seen the posters 5 or 7 days before the poll. PW 27 was not cross-examined and is corroborated by the returned candidate. There was time enough for the returned candidate to have done something to countermand these posters by clearing to the public that he was not responsible for these posters and that they should not put any faith in them. He did nothing of the kind. On the other hand, his account of election expenses included payment for this poster which shows that he adopted the act of Krishan Parshad Chopra who was incharge of his election. It is futile to argue that since this expenditure had been made it had to be shown in the election expenses. If the poster had not been issued on his behalf there was no need for the returned candidate to have shown the expenditure in his account of expenses. It is obvious that he saw the poster, did not see any harm in what had been done and therefore adopted the act of Krishan Parshad Chopra as his own. In view of the general power which Krishan Parshad Chopra enjoyed in the matter of the returned candidate's election campaign he must be held to be his agent for the purpose of Section 123(4) because of the Explanation already quoted. This general power was sufficient to establish a kind of prior consent which rendered more certain by the subsequent conduct of the candidate in not dis-owning or contradicting the poster or refusing to pay the charges for the printing. 9. The whole action, therefore, is an integrated one right from the appointment of Krishan Parshad Chopra as the all-in-all agent to run the election of the appellant and the knowledge of the poster by the returned candidate between first appearance of the poster and the poll. The returned candidate having seen the poster must have realised that they were casting aspersions on the personal conduct and character of his nearest rival. It was his duty to clear this impression. Although refusal to pay might not have exonerated him from the charge of corrupt practice, still he could improve his stand by at least doing so. The returned candidate having seen the poster must have realised that they were casting aspersions on the personal conduct and character of his nearest rival. It was his duty to clear this impression. Although refusal to pay might not have exonerated him from the charge of corrupt practice, still he could improve his stand by at least doing so. Having neglected to dis-own the poster and, on the other hand, having paid the charges for printing it, he cannot now escape the inference that all this was done with his consent. 10. Mr. Gupte argued that even if he accepted all the facts, under the law the consent must be prior to the publication of the poster and there was no evidence to show that he had so consented. This is true on the evidence as it stands. But the evidence must be read in the light of probabilities and attending circumstances. Here the returned candidate is found to be in a very unfavourable light. He took no action whatever in the matter and adopted the action of Krishan Parshad: thus identifying himself with the poster and its publication. Evidence proving a direct connection or consent is not to be expected in these circumstances and, we think, that the High Court was right in reaching the conclusion that the only inference that can be raised was that Krishan Parshad Chopra was the agent within Section 123(4) and even if he was to be treated "any other person" he must be regarded as a person who had the consent of the candidate. In our judgment, this corrupt practice was brought home to the returned candidate and the High Court was right in declaring his election void. We see no force in the appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed with costs.