JAGIR SINGH Vs. JASDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are two voters of the Dakala constituency who challenged the election of the 1st respondent to the Puniab Legislative Assembly on many grounds out of which only the charge of corrupt practice under Ss. 123 (3) and 123 (3A) of the Representation of the People Act now survives for consideration. Respondents 2 and 3 are the unsuccessful candidates. The charge of corrupt practice is based on the publication of a pamphlet, about the nature of which there is no dispute and the contents of which are therefore unnecessary to be set out. It is admitted that if the publication of the pamphlet either by the successful candidate or his election agent or anyone else at the instance of either of them is proved the election has to be set aside.

(2.) The publication was sought to be proved by the evidence of C.W.1. the proprietor of the printing press where it was printed, C.W. 2 in whose name it was printed as well as of P.W, 2. The evidence of R.W. 5 was relied upon to prove that the pamphlet was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as required under S. 127A of the Representation of the People Act and received by her on the l2th March. Ext. P-W. 1/4 was put forward by the appellants as the manuscript which was used for printing the pamphlet. This is purported to be signed by the successful candidate as well as C.W. 2, Jathedar Ram Singh, in whose name the pamphlet is published and P.W. 1, Bedi Raghbir Singh. On the other hand the printer, C.W. 1 produced another manuscript ExtC.W. 1/1 as the one from which the pamphlet was printed. There is also a tape-recorded conversation between the 1st respondent and Bhagwant Singh, the husband of the 2nd respondent, who was also her counsel in the election petition, from which the 1st respondent tried to make out that he was wholly unaware of and surprised at his signature in Ext. P.W. 1/4. His main argument before this Court was that the whole thing has been brought about by collusion between the 2nd respondent, Bedi Raghbir,Singh P.W. 1, Nichhatar Singh C.W. 1 and Jathedar Ram Singh C.W. 2. The learned Judge held:

(3.) The 1st respondent's case (supra) was one of complete denial of the allegations in the petition regarding the printing of the poster. He did not plead that the manuscript which was used for printing the poster, Ext. P.W.1/4 was manufactured on a blank paper bearing his signature. He did not even plead that the pamphlet must or might have been brought into existence by the petitioners or the 2nd respondent after the date of the poll for the purpose of the election petition. There is very satisfactory evidence that the poster should have been printed on the 1st of March, 1972. Ext. C.W. 1/1, which, as the learned Judge himself holds, has been brought into existence for the purpose of this petition bears that date. After carefully going through the evidence of C.W. 1, Nichhatar Singh we are satisfied that he is a witness who is anxious to help the 1st respondent and has brought Ext. C.W. 1/1 into existence for the purpose of helping him. Answers favourable to the petitioners had to be extracted out of his unwilling mouth , by cross-examination. Even he has put the date on Ext. C.W. 1/1 as 1st of March and his evidence is that it was printed on the 1st of March though he mentions only the name of C. W. 2, Ram,Singh. He also says that he had sent a letter. Ext. R. W. 5/1, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Whether that letter was sent on the 1st of March, as is spoken to by him or on the 5th of March, the date which it bears, does not affect the substance of the question. This letter has been received by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Miss Deol on 12th March. The learned Judge himself finds that it was received on 12th March. We have carefully scrutinized it and are satisfied that it has been signed by the ,Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 12th of March. That has been entered in the office diary on the 16th of March. Though it is true that the date 6th has been struck out and 16th has been put in, the 6th seems to have been put in due to a mistake. Looking into the entries in the diary on the previous pages as well as subsequent pages we have no doubt that the 16th is the correct date. The entries on this date contain a number of documents received from various Government offices which bear the date 6th March. We have no reason at all to doubt the genuineness of the entries in this diary. If Ext. R.W. 5/1 was signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 12th and entered in the diary on the 16th they probabilities the receipt of that document at least some days before the 12th. At no stage, except during the arguments before this Court, were the entries in this diary sought to be impugned. Indeed before the High Court it seems to have been urged on behalf of the 1st respondent that it was a diary maintained in the usual course of business. Taking therefore even Ext. C.W. 1/1 as well as the evidence of C.W. 1, Nichhatar Singh, into consideration we are satisfied that this pamphlet should have come into existence on the 1st of March. We have also compared the signature of the 1st respondent in Ext. P.W. 1/4 with many of his admitted signatures and are satisfied that signature is his and that is confirmed by the expert evidence of Mr. Puri. There being no satisfactory explanation on the part of the 1st respondent regarding the presence of his signature on Ext. P.W. 1/4 it is to be concluded on the evidence of Nichhatar Singh and Jathedar Ram Singh taken together that the 1st respondent had, come to C.W. 1's press and given EXt. P.W, 1/4 for printing. Conclusion No. 3 of the learned Judge also supports this finding. We are not quite sure about the presence of Bedi Raghbir Singh a that point of time. But we can see no cogent reason for disbelieving the evidence of C.W. 1 whose deposition clearly shows that he was anxious to help the 1st respondent. But in order to deny that Ext. P.W, 1/4 was this manuscript which was used for printing the poster he also had to manufacture EXt. C.W. 1/1 , That evidence even taken at its face value establishes that the printing of the pamphlet was on the 1st of March. If so it could have been done only at the instance of the 1st respondent. It was not even put to C.W. 1 that it was done after the poll. Why Ram Singh should have printed it if not at the instance of respondent No. 1 was never sought to be explained. Nor could respondent No. 2 have printed it .