In the list of reliance filed along with the election petition the account books of the Samta Press including cash memos and bills were mentioned but the account book itself was number produced.
The 1st respondent was particular about the production of the account books and he applied for the appointment of a companymissioner to go to Palwal and get them But the Commissioner was unsuccessful and Bhim Sen Mukhi companyld number be got at.
But only the latter was examined.
Four charges were made against the 1st respondent and only one of them ultimately came to the pressed before this Court.
It was only later, as we have already mentioned, that the names of Hukum Chand and Dharm Chand were mentioned.
In his list of witnesses he gave the names of two Radhevs but examined a different Radhev as P W. 14.
Devi Singh the alleged author of the manuscript, was number examined either.
The names of two Harchandis were given in the list but a 3rd Harchandi was examined as P.W. 18.
During the companyrse of the trial of this petition the appellant seems to have cast his net far and wide in order to be sure of obliging and companyvenient witnesses.
At the earliest stage the persons who informed the appellant about the printing were number mentioned.
But they were number examined.
Instead of speaking of the companyrupt practice of hiring vehicles he spoke to the distribution of posters.
He gave the names of two Sohan Lals, one to prove the distribution of the poster, and another to prove the companyrupt practice of hiring of vehicles.
