TMI Blog1974 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere independent candidates. Though there were nominally five candidates, the real contest was between the petitioner and the first respondent. The polling took place on 5th March, 1971 and the result of the poll was declared on 11th March, 1971. The petitioner secured 55305 votes, while the first respondent polled 98108 votes. The first respondent thus won by a large majority and was declared elected. The petitioner thereupon filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election of the first respondent on various grounds. The election petition was contested by the first respondent and, as the voluminous mass of record shows, it was fought out to a bitter and with great industry and thoroughness on both sides. Mr. Justice Andley of the Delhi High Court, who heard the election petition, found in an elaborate judgment that none of the grounds on which the election was sought to be invalidated was established and he accordingly dismissed the election petition with costs. The present appeal preferred by the petitioner impugns this judgment of Mr. Justice Andley. The election petition was based on numerous grounds which were summarised in paragraphs and subsequently elab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the contents of these written statements a little later when we examine the specific charges leveled against 26 3 the first respondent. Suffice it to state for the present that on the basis of the preliminary objections raised in the written statements, the learned Trial Judge framed four preliminary issues and they were decided by an order dated 6th August, 1971. So far as the first preliminary issue is concerned, the learned Trial Judge held that paragraphs 9, 12, 18 to 21 and 24 to 26 did not suffer from lack of concise statement of material facts, but they did not give full particulars of the allegations and he accordingly directed the petitioner to furnish further particulars with respect to paragraphs 18 to 21, 24 and 25 as specified in the schedule to the order. The second and the fourth preliminary issues do not survive for consideration : they were decided against the petitioner and the petitioner does not challenge the decision in appeal. The third preliminary issue was decided in favour of the petitioner but it is now meaningless to discuss it because the petitioner is not pressing the ground set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 in support of the appeal. Pursuant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 8, 9 and 10 were not established by the petitioner and there was also no satisfactory proof in regard to issue 14 and accordingly, by a judgment dated 19th May, 1972 he rejected the charges of corrupt practice against the first and fifth respondents and dismissed the election petition with costs. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial Judge preferred the present appeal under section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner assailed the correctness of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge only on issues 8, 9, 10 and 14. The judgment, in so far as it related to issues 1 to 7 and 11 to 13 was accepted by the petitioner and it is, therefore, not necessary to refer to the facts in so far as they bear on, those issues. We shall confine ourselves only to such of the facts as are relevant to issues 8, 9, 10 and 14 and instead of setting them out in a narrative form before commencing discussion of the arguments, what we propose to do is to refer to the relevant facts while discussing each particular issue. We shall.proceed in the order in which these issues were argued before us. We first take up issue 10. The charge against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he candidate must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as appearing from the evidence adduced before the Court. This question Would arise in a challenging form where expenditure in connection with the election is incurred, not by the candidate, but by the political party which has sponsored him or his friends and supporters. Can the limit on the expenditure be evaded by the candidate by not spending any moneys of his own but leaving it to the political party or his friends and supporters to spend an amount far in excess of tHe limit ? The object of the prevision limiting the expenditure is two- fold. In the first place, it should be open to individual or any political party, howsoever small, to be able to contest an election on a footing of equality with any other individual or political party, howsoever rich and well financed it may be, and no individual or political party should be able to secure an advantage over others by reason of its superior financial strength. It can hardly be disputed that the way elections are held in our country, money is bound to play an important part in the successful prosecution of an election campaign. Money supplies assets for advert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic requirement of the Constitution. This equal effective voice--equal opportunity of participation in the electoral process-would be denied if affluence and wealth are to tilt the scales in favour of one political party or individual as against another. The democratic process can function efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the common good and reach out the benefits of self-government to the common man only if it brings about a participatory democracy in which every man, howsoever lowly or humble he may be, should be able to participate on a footing of equality with others. Individuals with grievances, men and women with ideas and vision are the sources of any society's power to improve itself. Government by consent means that such individuals must eventually be able to find groups that will work with them and must be able to make their voices heard in these groups and no group should be insulated from competition and criticism. It is only by the maintenance of such conditions that democracy can thrive and prosper and this can be ensured only by limiting the expenditure which may be incurred in connection with elections, so that, as far as possible, no one single pol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that what is good for his former company or present backers is good for the country. It is likely that some elected representatives would tend to share the views of the wealthy supporters of their political party, either because of shared background and associations, increased access or subtle influences which condition their thinking. In such event the result would be that though ostensibly the political Parties which receive such contributions may profess an ideology acceptable to the com- mon man, they would in effect and substance be representative of a certain economic class and their policies and decisions would be shaped by the interests of that economic class. It was over a hundred years ago that John Stuart Mill observed that persons of a particular class who have exclusive governmental power, even if they try to act objectively, will tend to overlook the interests of other classes, or view those interests differently. And to this natural tendency may be added the fact that office bearers and elected representatives may quite possibly be inclined, though unconsciously and imperceptibly, to espouse policies and decisions-that will attract campaign contributions from a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supporters should be free to do. That is why the legislature wisely interdicted not only the incurring but also the authorising of excessive expenditure by a candi- date. When the political party sponsoring a candidate incurs expenditure in connection with his election, as distinguished from expenditure on general party propaganda, and the candidate knowingly takes advantage of it or participates in the programme or activity or fails to dis- avow the expenditure or consents to it or acquiesces in. it, would be reasonable to infer, save, in special circumstances, that he impliedly authorised the political party to incur such expenditure and he cannot escape the rigour of the ceiling by saying that he has not incurred the expenditure, but his political party has done so. A party candidate does not stand apart from his political party and if the political party does not want the candidate to incur the disqualification, it must exercise control over the expenditure which may be incurred by it directly to promote the poll prospects of the candidate. The same proposition must also hold good in case of expenditure incurred by friends and supporters directly in connection with the electio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and not a Hobson's choice offered by Political parties. Limiting election expenses must be part of the political process. This view, which we are taking, does not run counter to any earlier decisions of this Court. The first decision to which we must refer in this connection is Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh Ors.(1). There the corrupt practice charged against the elected candidate was that certain persons who were in employment of his father worked for him in connection with the election and their number exceeded the maximum number of persons who could be employed in connection with the election as specified in Sch. VI read with section 77. This charge was negatived by a Bench of five judges of this Court. The Bench held that in order to attract the inhibition of the relevant sections it was necessary that the employment of persons other than or in addition to those specified in Sch. VI should be by a candidate or his agent and since in that case, the persons who worked in connection with the election were neither employed nor paid by the elected candidate or his agent, the prohibitory requirement of section 77 read with section 123(7) was not breached. It will be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... included in the account or return of election expenses and thus expenses incurred by any other agent or person without any thing more need not be included in the account or return; as such incurring of expenditure would be purely voluntary. (Emphasis supplied) These observations would show that mere incurring or expenditure by any other person in connection with the election of a candidate, without something more, would not make it an expenditure authorised by the candidate. But if there is something more which can reasonably lend itself to the inference of implied authorisation, particularly having regard to the object and intendment of the provision limiting expenditure, the Court would readily draw such an inference because the paramount object of this provision is to bring about, as far as possible, equality in availability of resources and eliminate the corrupting influence of big money. If- is significant to note that in this case the Court proceeded to examine whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Brijraj Singh traveled with the Maharaja in his helicopter and visited several villages for his election campaign ,and held that the evidence in this connection w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20th February, 1971 and 2nd March,, 1971. This expenditure was supported by the bill of Tandon Tent Furniture House, R-25 which showed that for each of the twelve public meetings, Tandon Tent Furniture House had supplied twenty durris, six takhats and two chaddars at an aggregate charge of ₹ 15/- per meeting. The other was an amount of ₹ 180/-, which according to the first respondent, was paid to Saini Electric Works for microphone, loudspeakers and lighting arrangements made at the same twelve public meetings. The payment of this amount was sought to be supported by the receipt of Saini Electric Works,. R-27 which showed a consolidated charge of ₹ 180/- on account of loudspeaker and lighting arrangements for the period from 20th February, 1971 to 2nd March, 1971 . The third was an amount of ₹ 440/- paid to Aggarwal Tent House for furnishings and electric equipment supplied at eleven public meetings and the bill of Aggarwal, Tent House R-26 for this amount showed that Aggarwal Tent House had supplied for each public meeting one takhat, four durries, two chandanis, one microphone and four floodlights for a total (1) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 266. amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents and these particulars included reference to several public meetings which did not form part of the twenty three public meetings ultimately admitted by the first respondent, and yet the first respondent did not in his reply to the particulars deny that any of these public meetings were hold by the respondent, but merely contented himself by stating vaguely and evasively that the correctness of the statements made against paragraph 20(2)(ii) was denied. It is apparent that though more than twenty three public meetings were held by the first respondent the first respondent had not yet made up his mind as to which twenty three out of these public meetings he should admit. If in fact only twenty three public meetings were held and the particulars furnished by the petitioner included other public meetings, the first respondent would have promptly come out with an assertion that such and such public meetings alleged by the petitioner were not held. But he could not and did not particularise any such public meetings and deny them. It is also significant to note that when the petitioner in a rather curious menoeuvre summoned the first respondent to produce certain documents, the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the public meetings were held by the Delhi Sadar District Congress Committee. This attitude of the first respondent betrays an anxiety to hold back the true facts in regard to the public meetings. It may also be noted that even in the cross-examination of the petitioner and his witnesses, the first respondent did not put forward his case as to which were the specific public meetings held by him in connection with his election and which were not. It was only after the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed and the first respondent knew what exactly was the case of the petitioner, that he for the first time in his evidence particularised twenty three specific public meetings admitted by him. This strategy was adopted obviously with the object that the twenty three public meetings named by the first respondent should fit in with the unimpeachable documentary evidence which might be produced by the petitioner and his witnesses and should not be falsified by such evidence. With these broad general observations we now turn to consider the oral and documentary evidence in regard to the public meetings of the first respondent. The first respondent in his evidence admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at effect in the judgment. Out of these nine public meetings, there were six which were included in the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent and if that be so, it is difficult to imagine how the petitioner could have claimed them as being in addition to these twenty three public meetings. The petitioner could not possibly have confined his claim to these nine public meetings, when out of them, six were those which were admitted by the first respondent, and could not, therefore, be in addition to the admitted public meetings . In fact,as the subsequent discussion in the judgment shows, the learned Trial Judge actually proceeded to consider the evidence of the police officers and the officers belonging to the CID which was led on behalf of the petitioner for the purpose of proving various other public meetings in addition to the nine referred to by the learned Trial Judge and held, on a consideration of this evidence, that none of 'these public meetings claimed by the petitioner was established. This exercise would have been wholly unnecessary if the petitioner had given up his claim in regard to these public meetings and confined his argument only to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pective jurisdictions. Khemraj Dutt (P.W. 1) was the first witness called on behalf of the petitioner. He was the Station House Officer at Roshanara Road police station and he deposed from the records in his possession and filed a list PW 1/1 showing that two public meetings were held by the first respondent within the jurisdiction of his police station, one at Nagia Park on 23rd February, 1971 and the other near Birla Mills compounds on 24th February, 1971. Both these public meetings are included in the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent and we need not, therefore, dwell on the evidence of this witness. The next witness who gave evidence on behalf of the petitioner was Ramesh Chand, Station House Officer from Sadar Bazar Police Station (P.W. 6). He prepared from the records in his possession a list showing the public meetings held with in the jurisdiction of his police station and filed it in court as Ex. PW 615. The entries in this list have been the subject matter of controversy between the parties and we ,shall, therefore, refer to these entries in some detail. The list was broadly in three parts. One part expressly referred to public meetings held by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal party. The records from which the list was prepared did not show which were the political parties which held these public meetings and they were, therefore, classified under the heading Others . Ramesh Chand did not say that these public meetings were held by some individuals or political parties other than the Congress and the' Jan Sangh and that is why they were included under the heading Others nor was any such suggestion made to him in cross-examination. The explanation given by Ramesh Chand that the names of the political parties which held these public meetings were not known and hence not mentioned in the list was not challenged on behalf of the first respondent in cross-examination and if this explanation is to be accepted, as it must be, it is apparent that these public meetings were subsumed under the heading Others because the records did not show which were the political parties which held them. The word Others , meant merely other meetings and not meetings of others , that is of individuals or political parties other than the Congress and the Jan Sangh. We cannot, therefore, say that merely because a particular public meeting finds a place in the third ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p the petitioner, because the burden is on the petitioner to show that this public meeting was a meeting of the first respondent and the petitioner must discharge that burden on the evidence on record. How one fact which stands out from the evidence of Om Prakash Makkan (RI/WI) is that a part of Multani Dhandha (within the jurisdiction of Pahargunj police Station) fell within the area of the Karol Bagh Parliamentary constituency and this fact could not be controverted on behalf of the petitioner. If a part of Multani Dhandha fell within the area of the Karol Bagh Parliamentary constituency, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the public meeting of 18th February, 1971 might have been held by T. Sohan Lal in his part of Multani Dhandha in connection with his election. That in fact was the suggestion made by Om Parkash Makkan (RI/WI) in his evidence and it was repeated on behalf of the first respondent in the course of the arguments. This suggestion gains strength from the fact that amongst the speakers at this public meeting, shown in the list Ex. PW 7/ 1, was T. Sohan Lal. There was no positive evidence led on behalf of the petitioner showing that this public meeting was held i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the first respondent. Secondly, it is difficult to believe that within four days of the first public meeting at Multani Dhandha on 18th February, 1971, T. Sohan Lal should have held another public meeting at the same place. It is more probable that this public meeting should have been held by the first respondent for whom this was the first and the only meeting in this area. Lastly, Madan Lal Khorana (PW 10) deposed to a public meeting of the first respondent at Multani Dhandha and this evidence was not challenged at all in cross-examination and it was not even suggested to this witness that no meeting was held by the first respondent in Multani Dhandha. We, therefore, hold, on the strength of the list PW 7/1 and the permission PW 7/3 supported by the evidence of Madan Lal Khorana (PW 10), that a public meeting was held at Multani Dhandha on 22nd February; 1971 in connection with the election of the first respondent. Then we come to the evidence of Ram Murti Sharma (PW 8), who was the Station House Officer at Subzimandi Police Station. This witness filed a list Ex. PW 8/3 showing the public meetings held by the Congress within the jurisdiction of his police station and giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ID Special Branch at Tees Hazari. He stated in his evidence that during the election period his staff used to cover election meetings held by various political parties and they included public meetings held by the first respondent. He further stated that the officers who were sent to cover the public meetings used to attend them and then submit, either on the basis of the shorthand notes taken down by them or from memory, reports of the speeches made at these public meetings. He was then asked to state from his records as to what were the public meetings held in the Sadar Parliamentary constituency which were covered by his staff. He, however, claimed privilege in respect of the records brought by him and produced an affidavit of the Inspector General of Police in support of his claim of privilege. The affidavit was plainly inadequate as it merely repeated the language of section 123 of the Evidence Act under which the privilege was claimed, without informing the Court as to how the records in respect of which the privilege was claimed fell within the terms of the section. The learned Trial Judge, therefore rejected the claim for privilege based on this affidavit but gave a further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were relevant under the first part of section 35 of the Evidence Act since they contained statements showing what were the public meetings held by the first respondent. Vide P. C. P. Reddiar v. S. Perumal. (1) But by reason of the order made by the learned Trial Judge upholding the claim of privilege, these reports were removed from the ken of the petitioner as well as the learned Trial Judge. The petitioner contended before us that the learned Trial Judge was in error in upholding the claim of privilege and that the reports should have been made available to the petitioner. There is great force in this contention of the petitioner because it is difficult to see-how, barring any observations or nothings made by the officers by way of comment or opinion, the rest of the reports containing factual data could possibly be regarded as privileged. The learned Trial Judge himself could have looked at the reports for the purpose of satisfying himself as to what was the nature of the statements contained in the reports and whether they were privileged, and if so, to what extent, but the learned Trial Judge apparently did not choose to do. However, it is not necessary for us to decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any objection, though the furnishing of the chart would be clearly tantamount to production of the relevant parts of the official records containing particulars in regard to the dates and places of the public meetings and the names of the speakers. The chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police in compliance with this direction of the learned Trial Judge was, therefore, clearly admissible in evidence. The Inspector General of Police, in fact, affirmed this chart in his affidavit claiming the privilege and said in paragraph 3 of that affidavit that the chart had been supplied to the counsel of the petitioner through the witness Inspector Mohinder Pal Singh. It was suggested on behalf of the first respondent that there was nothing to show that this chart produced by the petitioner along with his application IA No. 645 of 1972 was the same as that given by the Inspector General of police. But this suggestion is wholly untenable. It is nothing but an afterthought. No such plea was put forward by the first respondent in reply to IA No. 645 of 1972. The first respondent did not dispute, in the affidavit filed by him in reply to this application that the chart produced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublic meetings where the police station staff was sent for maintenance of law and order. It is quite possible that there might have been other public meetings of which the police station officers had no notice and which might not have been covered by the police station staff and hence not entered in the registers maintained by the Police stations. In fact, Umesh Chandra stated in his.evidence that in February 1971, twenty four election mectingsa were held within the jurisdiction of his police station on behalf of various parties and yet the list Ex. PW 6/5 shows only eighteen public meetings. The absence of mention of a public meeting in the lists Ex. PW 6/5, PW 7/1 and PW 8/3 cannot, therefore, be a ground for disbelieving the testi- mony of an independent and disinterested witness like a CID officer. Moreover, it is difficult to appreciate how the oral testimony of a witness can be contradicted by a negative inference to be drawn from the absence of an entry in the register or list maintained by another witness, when that other witness has not stated in his evidence that his register or list was exhaustive and no other public meetings were held It may also be noted that no questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent was that this public meeting was the same as the one at Chuna Mandi on 22nd February, 1971 admitted by him and was not an additional meeting. This contention appears to be well founded. It is clear from the report of permissions Ex. PW 7/3 that Imperial Cinema is in Chuna Mandi and in fact a permission was granted under Ex. PW 7/3 for holding a public meeting in Chuna Mandi in front of imperial Cinema on 17th February, 1971, though it was subsequently cancelled as appearing from the list Ex. PW 7/1. The first respondent also stated in his evidence that there was a meeting in Chuna Mandi in front of Imperial Cinema on 22nd February, 1971. The public meeting near imperial Cinema on 22nd February, 1971 deposed to by Umesh Chandra was, therefore, the same as the public meeting at Chuna Mandi admitted by the first respondent. That leaves for consideration two public meetings, one at Amarpuri Colony on 25th February, 1971 and the other at Chowk Azad Market on 26th February, 1971. Both these public meetings were disputed by the first respondent. But the evidence given by Umesh Chandra (PW 39) supported by the relevant entries in the chart shows beyond doubt that these two public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c meeting under that heading was a meeting of arty individual or political party other than the Congress or the Jan Sangh. We must, therefore, hold, on the strength of the evidence of Umesh Chandra (PW 39), supported by the chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police, that in addition to the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent, two further public meetings were held in connection with the election of the first respondent, namely one at Amarpuri Colony on 25th February, 1971 and the other at Chowk Azad Market on 26th February, 1971. The next witness whose evidence we must consider is Ranbir Singh. (PW 49), who was at the material time a Sub-Inspector in CID Special Branch. He has stated that he covered three or four election meetings of the first respondent, and though he could not remember the sequence, he asserted that these election meetings were at Chowk Chhe Tooti, Clock Tower, Chowk Tatoo Shah Bagichi and Pahari Dhiraj. He further said that the first respondent spoke at all these- public meetings and the fifth respondent also spoke at one or two of them. He also gave the names of some of the other speakers at these four public meetings. These fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he summons served upon him and it was for that reason that he could give the names of these places in his evidence, but that does not detract from the value of his evidence, because unless these places mentioned in the summons were correct, he would not have subscribed to them in his evidence. He would have said 'I do not remember . But he gave evidence in regard to these public meetings because he remembered though his memory was prodded by what was stated in the summons. He even gave the names of some of the speakers and deposed broadly to the arrangements made at these public meetings. Not even a suggestion was made to him that the public meeting at Phari Dhiraj was a meeting of some other political party or individual. It may also be noted that apart from Ranbir Singh (PW 49), Kundanlal (PW 27) and Chunnilal (PW 32) also deposed to the public meeting at Pahari Dhiraj and there is no reason why their evidence should not be accepted, particularly when Kundanlal (PW 27) was an independent witness without any political affiliation and Chunni lal (PW 32) was also a person belonging neither to the Congress nor to the Jan Sangh. We, therefore, hold that a public meeting at Pah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this public meeting from memory. In fact the memory of this witness was severely tested in cross-examination by the first respondent but he stood the test firmly and was unshaken. There is nothing suggested as to why the testimony of this witness should be rejected. This witness not only deposed to the holding of the public meeting at Bahadurgarh Road but actually gave the names of the speakers at this public meeting, namely, the first respondent, the fifth respondent, Mir Mushtaq Ahmed and Sardar Wazir Singh. These names tally completely with the names of the speakers given in the chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police. We also find that the list Ex. 6/5 shows that a public meeting at Bahadurgarh was held on 26th February, 1971. It is undoubtedly mentioned under the heading 'others' but, as we have already explained, this does not mean that it could not be a meeting of the Congress. It is significant to note that not even a suggestion was made to this witness that the public meeting at Bahadurgarh was a meeting of some other political party or individual. Such a suggestion would obviously have been futile, because the evidence of this witness was that the only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... list Ex. 6/5 even under the heading 'Others'. Not only is the evidence of this witness uncontradicted by any documentary evidence but it actually finds support from the entry at Serial No. 16 in the chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police where it is shown as a meeting held in support of the first respondent. The names of the speakers given by this witness also tally with the names set out against the entry at Serial No. 16 in the chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police. We must, therefore, accept the case of the petitioner that a public meeting at Chhoti Masjid; Bara Hindu Rao was held by the first respondent on 26th February, 1971. That takes us to the evidence of Shyam Singh (PW 45), who Was at the material time posted in the CID Special Branch. He said in his evidence that he covered two public meetings of the first respondent, one at Chowk Nabi Karim on 26th February, 1971 and the other at Chowk Neemwala in Nabi Karim on 2nd March,'1971. The second public meeting at Chowk Neemwala on 2nd March 1971 was included in the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent, but the first public meeting at Chowk Nabi Karim held on 26th Fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, this chart is definitely weak piece of evidence and it would not be correct to rely upon it as substantive evidence for the purpose of holding, on the strength of its evidentiary value alone without anything more, that these two public meetings, namely one at Chowk Singhara on 18th February, 1971 and the other at Tonga Stand, Pahar Gunj on 2nd March,1971 were held in support of the election of the first respondent. Then there were three other public meetings claimed by the petitioner to havebeen held by the first respondent, namely one at Katra Karim on 17th February, 1971, the other at Chuna Mandi near Imperial Cinema on 17th February, 1971 and the third at Tel Mandi on 19th February, 1971. There is no evidence at all to show that these three public meetings were held. The only piece of evidence on which the petitioner could place reliance was the copy of the report Ex. PW 7/3 which showed the permissions granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the Congress to hold certain public meetings which included inter alia these three public meetings. But from the mere factual of permission, without any further evidence, we cannot come to the conclusion that these three public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this witness in regard to the factum of this public meeting was not challenged in cross-examination on behalf of the first respondent. The only challenge was to the accuracy of what he saw at this public meeting. When we turn to the evidence led on behalf of the first respondent in regard to this public meeting, we find a very interesting feature which is eloquent of the truth. Om Prakash Makkan (RIW 1) admitted in his cross-examination on 4th February, 1972 that he went to another meeting of the first respondent and the place whore this meeting was hold was Pul Bangash. But his cross-examination was not completed on 4th February, 1972. It was continued on 7th February, 1972 and in the course of the further cross-examination on that day, he seized the opportunity to go back on his previous admission and tried to explain it away by saying: I did not see any meeting at Pul Bangash. I had gone there to see Tirlochan Singh. When I went there I saw 20 or 25 people coming back. I asked them whether Tirlochan Singh was there and was informed that Tirlochan Singh was not there. Amongst the people returning was my brother-in-law Dina Nath and he told me that there had been a meeting in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the public meeting at Pul Bangash on 26th February, 1971. We, therefore, reject the claim of the petitioner that any such public meeting was hold at Sadar Nala Road on 15th February, 1971. We have discussed the evidence in regard to the number of public meetings held in connection with the election of the first respondent in great detail because we are taking a view different from the one taken by the learned Trial Judge and, in all fairness to the learned Trial Judge as well as to the first respondent, we think it necessary that we should articulate our reasons fully. The above discussion shows that in addition to the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent, nine further public meetings were held at the following places and on the following dates, namely 1. Amar Puri Colony on 26-2-1971 2. Chowk Azad Market on 26-2-1971 3. Chhoti Masjid, Bara Hindu Rao 26-2-1971 4. Pahari Dhiraj on 27-2-1971 5. Chhe Tooti on 12-2-1971 6. Hathi Khana, Bahadurgarh Road on 26-2-1971 7. Near Police Post, Nabi Karim on 26-2-1971 8. Multani Dhanda on. 22-2-1971 9. Pul Bangash on 26-2-1971 The first respondent owned the responsibility for expenses in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee amounts of ₹ 180/-, ₹ 180/- and ₹ 440/- in connection with these public meetings or these amounts represent a very much lower figure than what was actually spent by the first respondent. The expenditure of these amounts was sought to be supported by the bill of Tandon Tent Furniture House, the receipt of Saini Electric Works and the bill of Agarwal Tent House. The case of the first respondent was that furnishings in connection with twelve public meetings were supplied by Tandon Tent Fur- niture House and electric equipment by Saini Electric Works and furnishings and electric equipment in connection with the remaining eleven public meetings were supplied by Agarwal Tent House. However, strangely enough, when the first respondent was asked in cross-examination, he could not say as to which were the public meetings to which Tandon Tent Furniture House and Saini Electric Works supplied furnishings and electric equipment and which were the public meetings to which furnishings and electric equipment were supplied by Agarwal Tent House. If in fact, furnishings and electric equipment were supplied by Tandon Tent Furniture House, Saini Electric Works and Agarwal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Chief Electoral Officer- merely showed a sum of ₹ 180/- as having been received from the first respondent on account of loudspeaker and light arrangements for the period from 20th February, 1971 to 2nd March,1971 . It did not show where loudspeaker and light arrangements were supplied, what was the number of public meetings at which the supply was made, how many loudspeakers were supplied and what was the nature and extent of the lighting arrangements made at each public meeting. The rate at which loudspeaker and light arrangements were supplied was also not mentioned in the receipt. The receipt also did not refer to supply of microphones and, therefore, presumably, microphones were not supplied by Saini Electric Works and the amount of ₹ 180/- did not cover arty charges oil. that account. The evidence of Subhash Arya (RIW 35) also exposes the in- firmities in the case of the first respondent on this point. Subhash Arya (RIW 35) in his evidence made a distinction between big public meetings and small public meetings and stated that for big public meetings respondent No. I had instructed him to place an order with Tandon Tent House to supply furniture etc. other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Agarwal Tent House showed that furnishings and electrical equipment were supplied by that firm only at eleven public meetings held in the month of February, 1971. It is, therefore, obvious that, according to this bill, furnishings and electric equipment could not have been supplied by Agarwal Tent House at this public meeting held on 1st March, 1971. The bill of Agarwal Tent House thus does not fit in with the evidence and it is difficult to accept it as genuine. The only way in which the first respondent tried to get out of this rather difficult situation was by saying that the distinction made by Subhash Arya (RIW 35) between big meetings and small meetings was a distinction without a difference made under some misapprehension and this explanation appealed to the learned Trial Judge. But it is difficult to see how one could explain away this distinction in such a casual manner, when Subhash Arya (RIW 35) put forward this distinction deliberately and advisedly as part of the case of the first respondent and there was nothing in his evidence to suggest that it was made under any misapprehension. Then,again, it may be noted that,the bill of Agarwal Tent House referred to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged by Agarwal Tent House to the first respondent by way of hire for furnishings and electrical equipment and the rate of hire thus came to about ₹ 27/- per public meeting. So far as the bill of Tandon Tent Furniture House is concerned, it did not make any separate mention of cartage or labour charges in respect of furnishings supplied at twelve public meetings of the first respondent. The explanation of the first respondent as well as Bhagmal Tandon (RIW 14), the sole proprietor of this firm, was that the rate of ₹ 15/- per public meeting mentioned in this bill was inclusive of cartage and labour charges and that is why these charges were not separately shown as in the bill of Agarwal Tent House. obviously, some such explanation had to be given by the first respondent, because no separate amount in. respect of cartage and labour charges was shown by him in his return of expenses. But that exposes completely the dubious character of the bill of Tandon Tent Furniture House. The cartage and labour charges, according to the bill of Agarwal Tent House, were ₹ 13/- per public meeting. We will assume in favour of the first respondent that the cartage and labour char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied by Saini Electric Works-both the latter rates being inclusive of labour and cartage charges-are absurdly low and can hardly be regarded as genuine. It was not the case of the first respondent that the rates charged by these three firms were confessional rates. In fact, Bhagnial Tandon (RIW 14), who is the proprietor of Tandon Tent Furniture House, stated in his evidence that the rates charged by him from the first respondent were the usual market rates. If we look at the bills Exs. PW 15/1-A, PW 15/1-B and PW 15/1-C produced by Permod Kumar (PW 15), it is clear that the market rates particularly for the supply of electrical equipment were very much higher than those shown to have been charged by these three firms. We may then examine the evidence of Bhagmal Tandon (RIW 14), who came as a witness on behalf of the first respondent. He stated in his evidence that he did not receive any orders from the first respondent to supply furnishings during the election but it was Subhash Arya (RIW 35) who placed orders with him to arrange for furniture for election meetings of respondent No. 1 . He deposed that the bill in respect of furnishings supplied by him was submitted by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tandon Tent Furniture House from the first respondent in cash on 4th March, 1971. But, if we look at the original bill No. 8170, we find an endorsement at the foot of that bill showing that the amount of that bill, namely, ₹ 180/-, was paid to Tandon Tent Furniture House on 7th April, 1971. That is also borne out by the receipt R-8 dated 7th April, 1971 said to have been passed by Bhagmal Tandon (RIW 14) on behalf of Tandon Tent Furniture House in favour of the first respondent. But, if the amount of the bill was paid by the first respondent to Tandon Tent Furniture House on 7th April, 1971, it is difficult to see how it could be shown in the cash book as having been received on 4th March, 1971. In fact, if we look at the cash book, it is apparent, even to the naked eye, that the whole of it seems to have been written out in the same ink at one and the same time. We have in the course of our experience yet to come across a genuine cash book written with such neatness, uniformly with the same pen and in the same shade of ink over a hundred pages. We cannot place any reliance on the entry of ₹ 189.75 under date 4th March, 1971 at page 93 of the cash book and the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e requirement for each meeting . Then Bhagmal Tandon (RIW 14) was questioned whether any receipts Were obtained evidencing delivery of the furnishings to the representatives of the first respondent. He first blundered into the statement that he maintained copies but immediately resiled from it by saying that he maintained a bound book of printed forms and every time that a thelewala went to deliver furnishings at a public meeting, he would tear off a printed form from this bound book and give it to the thelewala to obtain the signature of the person who received the furnishings and the thelewala would bring back that printed form duly signed by such person. No copies of these printed forms of receipt were, however, maintained by him and the originals were torn off by him after the account was settled with the first respondent on 4th March, 1971. He was then cross-examined with regard to payment of carnage charges to the thelewalas. He stated that he used to pay the thelewalas at the rate of Re. 1/- or ₹ 1.50 for each one way trip and thus, accord- ing to him, the cartage charges came to about ₹ 3/- per each return trip. Since the cartage charges of ₹ 3/- per each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he more fact that there is no sufficient evidence about the amount that must have been spent is not ground foreign ignoring the matter. It is the duty of the court to assess all expenses as best it can and though the court should not enter into the region of speculation or merely try to guess the amount that must have been spent, it would generally be possible to arrive at an amount of expenditure oil a conservative basis and, where it is possible to arrive at any such estimate, such estimated amount should be hold as not shown by the candidate in his election account . See also P. C. P. Raddiar v. S. Perumal (2). The Court cannot fold its hands and surrender in helplessness because the respondent refuses to cooperate and assist and holds back the relevant information in his possession. The Court in such a case is not powerless to arrive at the truth as best as it can. The Court can and must, as far as possible, assess the amount of expenditure on the basis of the material on record when it finds that there is suppression of some item of expenditure or the item is deliberately shown as less than what must have actually been incurred. Here in the present case the first respondent ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order placed by the first respondent and the payment of the amounts of these three bills was made to him personally by the first respondent. The copies of these three bills were marked Exs. 15/1-A, PW 15/1-B and PW 15/1-C. The first respondent challenged the genuineness of these three bills and the learned Trial Judge felt serious doubt about the authenticity of these three bills and declined to act upon them. We do not think the learned Trial Judge was right in casting doubt on the genuineness of these three bills. There is absolutely no reason why these three bills should be regarded as unworthy of credibility. Permod Kumar (PW 15) who produced and proved these three bills is a completely independent witness who has no interest in one side or the other. It was faintly suggested to him in cross-examination that he was a member of the Jan Sangh and he worked for Jan Sangh candidates in the elections but this suggestion was stoutly denied by him and in fact there is nothing to show that he was in any way interested in the Jan Sangh. It was then put to him that he was a partner of one Padamchand Goel who was a member of the Delhi Municipal Corporation on Jan Sangh ticket. He admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arbon copies of the bills produced by him were not genuine. It is not at all improbable that the only record which the witness maintained was the bill-book, because by the very nature of his business, the bill-book would contain a complete record of the amount of hire received by him. The carbon copies of the bills not only show the names of the parties to whom materials are given on hire but also the dates and the particulars of the items and the hire charges in respect of the same. The witness also admitted in cross- examination that he did not maintain any receipt books but that is also not at all unusual. One does not need to have a regular receipt book. A receipt can always be given on the bill submitted to the customer. Then some minor discrepancies were sought to be shown in the carbon copies of one or two other bills in the bill book. One was in respect of bill No.256.It was pointed out to the witness bore date 15th February, 1971, while bill No. 256 bore date 14th February, 1971 and he was asked how a latter bill could bear an earlier date than the earlier bills. The witness pointed out that was an obvious mistake and there is no doubt that it was so. It is apparent from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancelled bill No. 229 with bill No. 231, cancelled bill No. 208 with bill No. 209 and cancelled bill' No. 253 with bill No. 254. There is no reason why any blank unuti- lised bills should have been allowed to remain in the bill books. That is not done by people who maintain their accounts in the regular course of business. Permod Kumar (PW 16) could not have anticipated on 20th February, 1971 that some blank bills might come in handy at a future point of time and he should, therefore, leave some blank bills in the bill books. It is also difficult to believe that there should have been a blank bill No. 263 and again three continuous blank bills at Nos. 269, 270 and 271. We find it impossible to accept this theory of fabrication of bills Exs. PW 15/1-A, PW 15/1-B and PW 15/1-C by utilising blank bills in the bill book Ex. PW 1611. Moreover, there is inherent evidence in these bills which indicates their genuine- ness. The charge for a complete stage of 12' x 10' size and 5' height with chadder, durries and carpets is shown in the bill Ex. PW 15/1-A as ₹ 40/- per day. That appears to be quite reasonable compared to the ridiculously low figures given in the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -A and PW 16/1-B serve two purposes. They not only show the actual expenses incurred by the first respondent in connection with the public meetings at Tel Mandi on 19th February, 1971 and Chuna Mandi on 22nd February, 1971, but also provide reliable material for making a reasonable estimate of the expenses which must have been incurred by the first respondent in connection with other public meetings. The actual expense in connection with the public meeting at Tel Mandi on 19th February, 1971 was ₹ 350/according to Ex. PW 1611 A and in connection with the public meeting at Chuna Mandi on 22nd February, 1971 it was ₹ 400/- as appearing from Ex.PW15/1-B. We may err on the side of conservatism and take the lesser of these two figures, namely, ₹ 360/-, as a basis for making a reasonable estimate of the expenditure in connection with other public meetings. This would mean that there must have been expenditure 3 05 of about ₹ 350/- per public meeting in connection with public meetings of the type which were held at Tel Mandi on 19th February, 1971 and Chuna Mandi; on 22nd February, 1971. These were obviously bigger meetings and for the smaller ones, the expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 150/- to ₹ 200/-, a much more 'shandar' public meeting held by the Congress would certainly cost anything more than ₹ 200/-. The estimate of ₹ 150/- per public meeting can, therefore, safely be regarded as a reasonable estimate. We may also refer to the evidence of Dharamvir (PW 66). This witness was also an independent witness having no interest either in Jan Sangh or in Congress. When questioned in regard to his association with Jan Sangh he stated emphatically and in clear terms that he was neither a worker nor a member of the Jan Sangh. It was suggested to him that his brother Jagdish was a Secretary of a Mandal of Jan Sangh to which he replied that to his knowledge, at any rate, during the last Six Or seven years, his brother Jagdish had not been a Secretary of any Jan Sangh Mandal. He was also questioned about the political affiliation of his brother Jagdish and his answer was that he did not know whether his brother Jagdish was a member of Jan Sangh. There is nothing to show that this witness had any interest in Jan Sangh or that he belonged to the political persuasion of' Jan Sangh. His evidence cannot, therefore, be assailed on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or was the charge of Re. 1 .50 or ₹ 2-/ for each flood light. It is, therefore, apparent from the evidence of this witness that the expenditure in connection with the public meeting at Bara Tooti Chowk on 22nd February, 1971 could not have been less than ₹ 250/- and that justifies the reasonable estimate of ₹ 150/- per public meeting. We may also refer to the evidence of O.P. Bharti (RIW 23) in this connection. This witness was summoned on behalf of the first respondent and his evidence, therefore assumes some importance. He was questioned in cross-examination in regard to what he saw at the public meeting of the first respondent at Bara Tooti Chowk which he attended. He stated that in this public meeting there was a stage 20' in length, 10' in width and 5' in height. The stage was covered by durries and chaddars. There were two microphones. There were durries on the ground in front of the stage. There were four or five flood lights on the stage and there was electric bulbs hung at three or four poles. Now, in order to make a stage of the size deposed to by this witness, it would be necessary to have at least 30 takhats of the size 6'x 3'x 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ean that, over and above the expenditure of ₹ 800/- shown by him, he incurred or authorised further expenditure of ₹ 4,800/- on these thirty-two public meetings held in connection with his election. That takes us to a consideration of the public meeting at Idgah Road which was addressed by the Prime Minister. So far as this public meeting is concerned, the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish that the expenses in connection with it were incurred or authorised by the first respondent. There is no reliable evidence on behalf of the petitioner to show that this public meeting was held by 5- 5--M255Sup.CI/75 the first respondent or that it was a public meeting held specifically in connection with the election of the first respondent. The evidence does not even go so far as to say that this public meeting was held in the Sadar Bazar Parliamentary constituency from where the first respondent was a candidate. In fact, Govind Ram Varma (PW 19) admitted that the place where this public meeting was held was in Karol Bagh constituency. It also came out in evidence that this public meeting was attended both by the first respondent and T. Sohan Lal and it could not, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. It is difficult to understand how the first respondent found himself unable to assert definitely whether this public meeting was arranged by the District Congress Committee, Karol Bagh or the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee. He was the secretary of the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee and he must surely have known as to who arranged this public meeting. whether it was the District Congress Committee, Karol Bagh or the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee. Then why did the first respondent not come out with a positive case right from the begining? This does give rise to suspicion that perhaps the 30 9 first respondent had something to hide from the Court. If in fact this public meeting was arranged by the District Congress Committee, Karol Bagh, the first respondent could have easily called the Secretary of that Committee to prove this fact. Equally, if the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee were responsible for this public meeting, the first respondent, who was the then Secretary, could have easily produced the records of the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee to show that the expenditure in connection with this public meeting was incurredby thatorgani- sation.In fact, the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andbills or it covered also the cost of paper required for the purpose. There was a 'Bill of Sood Litho Press bearing No. 798 dated 27th February, 1971 in respect of this amount of ₹ 100/- and that was filed by the first respondent with the Returning Officer along with his return of expenses. This bill was produced in Court by D. B. Bhardwaj, (PW 5) from the office of the Returning Officer in obedience to a summons obtained by the petitioner. When this bill was produced, it bore an endorsement complete Prtg. etc. and immediately below that, another endorsement Printing charges only , but this second endorsement appeared scored out. The first respondent did not offer any explanation in his examination-in-chief as to how and in what circumstances the second endorsement Printing charges only was scored out. In fact, he did not say anything in his examination-in-chief in regard to this bill of Sood Litho Press. It was only in cross-examination that he stated for the first time that the charges mentioned in this bill included the cost of apaper. He was, however, constrained to admit that it was not stated in this bill in so many words that the charges included the cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aufiq Farooqi and this second endorsement was scored off at some subsequent stage. This conclusion is strengthened and fortified by the fact-that the link of the line scoring the second endorsement Printing charges only is of a different shade than the ink of the words in the second endorsement. Then again, there is a very important circumstance which shows beyond doubt that the second endorsement Printing charges only was scored off at some subsequent stage after the issue of the bill. This circumstance constitutes a rather disturbing and disquieting feature of the case. The original bill was admittedly filed by the first respondent with the Returning Officer along with his return of expenses. Before it was produced by D.B. Bhardwaj (PW 5), the petitioner applied inter alia for a certified copy of this bill and he got a certified copy of 16th June, 1971 which showed the second endorsement Printing charges only intact without any scoring. The inference is, therefore, inevitable that on 16th June 1971 when a certified copy was issued by the office of the Returning Officer. the original bill contained the second endorsement Printing charges only and this second endorsement wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ost of paper utilised in printing 5000 hand-bills containing the appeal of the Prime Minister would, therefore, have to be added to the election expenses of the first respondent. Now this item of cost of paper was suppressed by the first respondent and we would, therefore, have to make a reasonable estimate of the expenditure incurred on it on the basis of the material on record. There is, fortunately for the petitioner, evidence on this point which enables us to make a reasonable estimate of the cost of paper which must have been utilised in printing these 5000 hand-bills. Babu Ram Sharma (PWl 1) stated in his evidence that Sarvadeshik Press, of which he was in employee, printed 8000 hand-bills containing the appeal of the Prime Minister for the first respondent and these hard-bills were like the document marked A/13 which, as deposed to by Taufiq Farooqi, was similar to the hand-bills printed by Sood Litho Press. According to Babu Ram Sharma, four reams were utilised by Sarvadeshik Press for printing 8000 hand-bills like A/ 1 3 and the cost of paper utilised for this purpose was ₹ 30/- per ream. Now, if four reams were utilised for printing 8000 pamphlets; it must follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he orders for printing the said annexures and the manuscript/subject-matter was handed over to me by the said Amar Nath Chawla . When confronted with this affidavit,. he had to% admit that it bore his signatures on both pages but came out with art explanation that his affidavit had been brought to him by some Aryasamaji boys headed by Mahinder Kumar Shastri and they forced him to sign this affidavit and he accordingly signed it and gave it to Mahinder Kumar Shastri. This explanation is, to say the least, puerile. It is difficult to believe that this witness should have been forced to, sign this affidavit by some Arya Samaji boys headed by Mahinder Kumar Shastri. He does not say what was the force used by these persons and why he could not resist the use of this force and succumbed to it. He was, according to his statement in evidence, forced to put his signature on this affidavit in his press. But if that were true, he would have surely shouted for help because the shop of Sood Litho Press is situate on the main road and there are quite a few other shops adjoining to it. Moreover, he would have immediately complained to his employer Krishan Avtar Agarwal, the proprietor of Sood Lit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive. But that is far from a challenge to the printing work shown in the copy of the bill Ex PW 2/1. Merely because no declaration was taken by good Litho Press from any one in connection with this printing work, it does not necessarily follow that no printing work was done by them. It is riot uncommon to find that during elections posters and hand bills are printed without complying with the requirement of section 127A. The reason is, as pointed out by this Court in Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed Ors. (1), that there is no agency of the law which takes prompt action after due investigation, with the result that no printer or candidate or other propagandist 'during elections bothers about the law and he is able successfully to spread scandal without a trace of the source, knowing that nothing will happen until long after the election, when in a burden-some litigation this question is raised . We may emphasise once agair that there should be some independent semi-judicial instrumentality set up by law, which would immediately investigate, even while the election fever is on and propaganda and canvassing are in progress and the evidence is raw and fresh how the offending hand bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e wrong in taking the view that they were the same as the hand bill Annexure 'A' to the petition, because Annexure 'A' to the petition bears the print-line of Sood Litho Press and the first respondent suppressed from the Court information as to what were the hand bills printed by Sood Litho Press for him. Babu Ram Sharma (PW 11) stated that half ream would be required for printing 1000 hand bills of the size of Annexure 'A' to the petition and the price of paper used for Annexure 'A was ₹ 30/- per ream at the relevant time and this statement was supported by the evidence of Chater Sain (PW 22). The cost of paper utilised in printing 2000 hand bills would, therefore, be ₹ 30/-. Thus, the aggregate cost of paper utilised in printing poster and hand bills as shown in the copy of the bill Ex. PW 2/1 would come to ₹ 405/- but we may take it at ₹ 300/- on a very conservative basis. We must, therefore, add to the expenditure incurred by the first respondent, ₹ 75/- being the cost of paper utilised in printing 5000 hand bills shown in the admitted bill of Sood Litho Press, ₹ 54/being the amount of the bill of Sood Litho Pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
