The learned Judge held 1 that he had numberdoubt that the pamphlet was printed from Ext.
On the other hand the printer, C.W. 1 produced another manuscript Ext.
P.W.1/4.
C.W. 1/1 had been manufactured for the purpose of this petition 3 that the figures 20 x 305000 on Ext.
P.W.1/4, was manufactured on a blank paper bearing his signature.
P.W.1/4 6 that this anxiety companyld be because he had in fact signed such a poster as it was number his case that he ever signed any blank paper and 7 that he was number, however, sure of the existence of the poster.
Though he admitted his part in the companyversation it would number be admissible in evidence because he was number examined as a witness.
Answers favourable to the petitioners had to be extracted out of his unwilling mouth by cross examination.
There is very satisfactory evidence that the poster should have been printed on the 1st of March, 1972.
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.
C.W.1/1 into existence for the purpose of helping him.
P.W.1/4 it is to be companycluded on the evidence of Nichhatar Singh and Jathedar Ram Singh taken together that the 1st respondent had companye to C.W.1s press and given Ext.
After carefully going through the evidence of C.W.I. 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 as the one from which the pamphlet was printed.
The publication was sought to be proved by the evidence of C.W.I, 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.1.
R.W.5/1, to the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
This letter has been received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Miss Deol on 12th March.
P.W. 1/4 appears to be his 5 that the production of Ext.
P.W.1/4 for printing.
The evidence of R.W. 5 was relied upon to prove that the pamphlet was sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate as required under Section 127A of the Representation of the People Act and received by her on the 12th March.
He also says that he had sent a letter, Ext.
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 number affect the substance of the question.
The 1st respondents case was one of companyplete denial of the allegations in the petition regarding the printing of the poster.
We have also companypared the signature of the 1st respondent in Ext.
P.W.1/4 2 that Ext.
His main argument before this Court was that the whole thing has been brought about by companylusion between the 2nd respondent, Bedi Raghbir Singh P.W. 1, Nichhatar Singh C.W. 1 and Jathedar Ram Singh C.W. 2.
C.W.1/1 as well as the evidence of C.W.I, Nichhatar Singh, into companysideration we are satisfied that this pamphlet should have companye into existence on the 1st of March.
P.W. 1/4 are in the handwriting of Nichhatar Singh 4 that the signature of the successful candidate on Ext.
There being numbersatisfactory explanation on the part of the 1st respondent regarding the presence of his signature on 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.
There is also a tape recorded companyversation between the 1st respondent and Bhagwant Singh, the husband of the 2nd respondent, who was also her companynsel 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 was put forward by the appellants as the manuscript which was used for printing the pamphlet.
He did number 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.
C.W.1/1.
He did number plead that the manuscript which was used for printing the poster, Ext.
C.W.1 /1 by Michhatar Singh and the tape recorded companyversation show an anxiety on the part of 1st respondent to steer clear of his signature on Ext.
