KAMWAR LAL GUPTA Vs. AMAR NATH CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The document Exhibit Public Witness . 11/5 which contains a writing in Hindi was produced and proved by Public Witness . 11 who is an employee of the Sarvdeshik Press. This document was admitted in evidence only in connection with the corrupt practice referred to in section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, relating to the excess of expenses over the prescribed limit of Rs. 10,000.00 which is covered by Issue No. 10 and not in connection with the corrupt practice relating to annexures 'A' and 'B' to the petition which is covered by Issues Nos. 8 and 9. Public Witness . 11 stated that respondent No. I, accompanied by Krishan Avtar Aggarwal; Public Witness . 2 and respondent No. 5 had come to his press for getting some printing work done and that Krishan Avtar Aggarwal wanted 9 pamphlets, including Exhibit PW. 11/5, to be printed. Neither this witness nor any other witness has stated that the writing on Exhibit Public Witness . 11/5 is that of respondent No. 5. This writing has the signatures of one Om Parkash Jain and does not purport to bear the signatures of respondent No. 5.

(2.) In this application it is alleged that the writing on Exhibit Public Witness . 1 1/5 is that of respondent No. 5. Alongwith this application a letter dated 6.8.1971 alleged to be in the handwriting and bearing the signatures of respondent No. 5 has been filed. It is prayed that respondent No. 5 should be asked to admit or deny whether the said letter dated 6.8.1971 is in his handwriting and if respondent No. 5 denies this letter to be in his handwriting, he should be directed to give a specimen writing corresponding to the writting in Exhibit Public Witness . 11/5 in three or four sets as the petitioner desires to examine a handwriting expert for the purpose of proving that the writing and notings on Exhibit Public Witness 11/5 are in fact in the handwriting of respondent No. 5. The petitioner, has, therefore, made two prayers: (1) that respondent No. 5 be examined to admit or deny whether the letter dated 6.8.1971 is in his hand and (2) upon his denial he be directed to give a specimen writing as stated above.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 has filed a reply to this application opposing the prayers. It is submitted that the document Exhibit Public Witness . 11/5 alongwith others in the series produced by Public Witness . 11 was produced by the petitioner in proof of Issue No. 10 relating to the expenses incurred by respondent No. 1 being beyond the prescribed limit ofRs. 10,000.00 and that respondent No. 5 has nothing to do with the incurring of expenditure beyond the authorised limit ofRs. 10,000.00 as he is connected only with the corrupt practices based on the publication of annexures 'A' and 'B' to the petition which are covered by the pleadings contained in paragraphs 20 to 24 while the allegation with regard to the excess of expenses is contained in paragraph 25 of the petition. It is contended that respondent No. 5 cannot be asked to admit or deny the document filed by the petitioner with this application as a party and the petitioner should summon respondent No. 5 as his witness so that respondent No. 1 has an opportunity to cross-examine him. It is further contended that respondent No. 5 is not at all concerned with Issue No. 10 relating to expenses.