4 of 1969 .
C. Sharma, K. I. Rathee, M. S. Gupta, C. L. Lakhanpal and S. K. Dhingra, for the petitioners in E.P. No.
exercised by the publication and distribution of the pamphlets, making scurrilous attack about the personal character of Sri Sanjiva Reddy.
Objection was raised to receiving the same as evidence.
C. Malik, M. S. Gupta and K. L. Rathee, for the petitioners in E.P. No.
5 of 1969 .
In Rup Chand v. Mahabir Parshad 3 the defendant, in answer to a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money on the basis of a promissory numbere.,
put forward a plea that the original promissory numbere companytaining certain endorsement had been destroyed and had been replaced by another promissory numbere bearing the same date.
The material facts relating to the strict allegations have also been given in the petition in paragraph 13 of the election petition.
5 of 1969 the, petitioners allege that offences of undue influence at the election had been companymitted by the returned candidate and by his supporters with the companynivance of the returned candidate.
K. Daphtary, D. Narasaraju, S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, S. Desai, S. K. Dholakia, J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and O. C. Mathur, for the respondent in both the petitions .
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General, L. M. Singhvi and K. P. Nayer, for the AttorneY General, Election Commission and Returning Officer, Presidential Election.
In the particulars given by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar, relating to the distribution of pamphlets in question, he has stated that the persons who distributed them between August 9 and August 16, 1969 had already been mentioned in the election petition.
The defendant attempted to substantiate this plea by the oral testimony of a broker but the latter declined to support him.
Objection was raised by Mr. C. K. Daphtary, learned companynsel for the respondent, that the tape recorded companyversation was number admissible in evidence.
5 of 1969, when certain suggestions were put to him that he had tried to dissuade the first petitioner in the said Election Petition, viz.,
Election Petitions in Admissibility in Evidence of Tape Recorded Conversation.
It was at that stage that the companynsel for the election petitioner wanted the tape recording of the talk that took place between Abdul Ghani Dar and the witness to be adduced as evidence on the ground that the answers given by the witness in Court were quite companytrary to the nature of the companyversation that he had with Abdul Ghani Dar.
The Order of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. On April 1, 1970 Shri Jagat Narain R.W. 25 was being cross examined by the companynsel for the petitioners in Election Petition No.
4 and 5 of 1969.
Though the witness admitted that he had a telephone talk with Abdul Ghani Dar, he denied various other suggestions put to him regarding the nature of the talk that took place between him and Abdul Ghani Dar.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Election Petitions Nos.
Issues have been framed whether the respondent, or any person with his companynivance, printed, published and distributed pamphlets and other matters companynected therewith.
It has been alleged that on August 9, 1969 an unsigned pamphlet in cyclostyled form and also printed pamphlet without bearing the name of its publisher or printer marked as Exhibits P 18B and P 37 A respectively were published by free distribution among the members of the Electoral College for the Presidential Election.
Shri Abdul Ghani bhar from filing the election petition on political reasons and when the witness denied number only those suggestions but also certain other suggestions put to him, companynsel for the petitioner represented that Shri Abdul Ghani Dar had a tape recording of the talk that took place between him and the witness and he sought permission from the Court to play the same for being put to the witness.
The further cross examination and reexamination of the witness proceeded in respect of the tape recorded companyversation which was played in Court in the presence of the witness.
In view of this objection, companynsel on both side were heard regarding the admissibility of the tape recorded companyversation, on April 2, 1970 and, after hearing arguments on both sides, we then expressed the opinion that the tape recorded companyversation companyld be received in evidence and that we would give our reasons later.
lie has further stated in the said particulars that Shri Jagat Narain was one of the persons who distributed the pamphlets in the Central Hall of Parliament on August 11, 1969 to the Members of Parliament whose names have also been given.
