Case: Rampal Singh Vs. Kr. Satyavir &amp; Another

the place where the accounts were kept. Sharmas story was that Gupta gave original parchas or chits signed by Rampal Singh of which he made a note. He showed that note to Khanna and respondent No. 1. Khanna directed him to get the original chits. He approached Gupta who expressed his inability to give the original to him. However, Gupta said that he would take them to Khanna and show them to him. This was done by him and the chits were shown to Khanna in Sharmas presence. Khanna then asked Gupta to leave the documents with him and he would return them after seeing them. Gupta left the original chits with Khanna which were forty in number. Khanna put them in a drawer and later after studying them told respondent No. 1 that he had a strong case because most of the chits had been signed by the appellant. Sharma could not say where those chits were when he gave evidence in Court. When asked about the date, on which Gupta gave Khanna those original chits Sharma stated that they were shown to him on April 15 or 16, 1969 after the petition had been prepared. Khanna who appeared as P. W. 10 stated that Gupta was his class fellow. He gave those original chits to him, some of which were signed by the appellant, some by Parveen Singh Pradhan and some by Mangal Singh. According to him the chits had been lost and although he made a search for them he could not find them. It was in the month of July that he discovered the loss. He had put them in his table drawer in his chamber, in Guptas presence, which was not locked. He had separated the chits bearing the signatures of the appellant and the rest. The following part of his statement may be reproduced:-"In July Satya Vir came and told me the parchis would be summoned in the High Court. Then I found them missing. I told him I could not find them. I told him to summon them from Budhmal, as I might be able to trace them after searching. I did not tell Budhmal that the parchis had disappeared. After that Satya Vir kept coming to ask if I had found them, I did not lodge any report with the police, as I could not be sure what had happened to them". Gupta, as stated before, maintained that it was false to say that he had showed Sharma any original chits or that he went with him to Khanna. The learned Judge even allowed him to be cross-examined by counsel for respondent No. 1 for whom he was appearing as a witness for reasons which are not mentioned at all. 8. The above evidence relating to the disappearance of the original chits for the material period which, it is alleged, bore the signatures of the appellant in the manner deposed to by Khanna creates a good deal of doubt in our mind about the soundness of the conclusion of the learned Judge which was based mainly on the falsity of the books of account of the Vijay Engineering Corporation and the other facts and circumstances which have been detailed before. It is difficult to accept the version of Khanna that the original chits had disappeared in the manner stated by him. It seems to us that the original chits were deliberately withheld after having been secreted away or taken from Gupta who was prepared to help respondent No. 1 in every way. The various persons concerned in this matter are also intimately connected. Gupta is an old class-fellow of Khanna who is not only a friend of respondent No. 1 but also his legal advisor in the matter of institution of the-election Petition. It seems to us that there has been a lot of manipulation of evidence which was not entirely for the benefit of the appellant. The very fact that the original chits disappeared or were withheld by the legal advisor of respondent No. 1 or other persons who were concerned with the conduct of his case showed that their disappearance could not have been for the benefit of the appellant. It is not shown that he had anything to gain by the disappearance of the original chits. On the contrary their production might have told a different story and completely demolished the whole case of respondent No. 1. 9. In the above view of the matter we consider it wholly unnecessary to examine the question whether Mahipal Singh was closely associated with the appellant or not and the effect of non-production of Mohinderpal Singh. We may, however, point out that the observations of the learned Judge with regard to the bill for Rs. 1700.60 which was produced along with the return of election expenses by the appellant and about the part payment of the bill made on February 21, 1969 which was not in round figures, are prompted mostly by the whole atmosphere of suspicion which was quite naturally generated owing to the forgeries which were found in the books of account, credit memos, bill books etc., of the Vijay Engineering Corporation. But the point which is of real consequence is that the Court cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the manipulation of various accounts and documents was done by Gupta or some other employee of the said firm solely for the appellants benefit . The only piece of evidence which would have concluded he matter, namely, the original chits was deliberately with held or done away with not at the instance of the appellant but by those who were acting in the interest of respondent No. 1.In such a state of affairs it would not be safe to base the conclusion on a matter involving a corrupt practice which has serious consequences on such an unreliable, fabricated and manipulated evidence. The learned Judges unfortunately did not consider all these matters in their proper perspective. 10. We woul

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. The above evidence relating to the disappearance of the original chits for the material period which, it is alleged, bore the signatures of the appellant in the manner deposed to by Khanna creates a good deal of doubt in our mind about the soundness of the conclusion of the learned Judge which was based mainly on the falsity of the books of account of the Vijay Engineering Corporation and the other facts and circumstances which have been detailed before. It is difficult to accept the version of Khanna that the original chits had disappeared in the manner stated by him. It seems to us that the original chits were deliberately withheld after having been secreted away or taken from Gupta who was prepared to help respondent No. 1 in every way. The various persons concerned in this matter are also intimately connected. Gupta is an oldw of Khanna who is not only a friend of respondent No. 1 but also his legal advisor in the matter of institution ofn Petition. It seems to us that there has been a lot of manipulation of evidence which was not entirely for the benefit of the appellant. The very fact that the original chits disappeared or were withheld by the legal advisor of respondent No. 1 or other persons who were concerned with the conduct of his case showed that their disappearance could not have been for the benefit of the appellant. It is not shown that he had anything to gain by the disappearance of the original chits. On the contrary their production might have told a different story and completely demolished the whole case of respondent No. 1. Wemay, however, point out that the observations of the learned Judge with regard to the bill for Rs. 1700.60 which was produced along with the return of election expenses by the appellant and about the part payment of the bill made on February 21, 1969 which was not in round figures, are prompted mostly by the whole atmosphere of suspicion which was quite naturally generated owing to the forgeries which were found in the books of account, credit memos, bill books etc., of the Vijay Engineering Corporation. But the point which is of real consequence is that the Court cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the manipulation of various accounts and documents was done by Gupta or some other employee of the said firm solely for the appellants benefit . The only piece of evidence which would have concluded he matter, namely, the original chits was deliberately with held or done away with not at the instance of the appellant but by those who were acting in the interest of respondent No. 1.In such a state of affairs it would not be safe to base the conclusion on a matter involving a corrupt practice which has serious consequences on such an unreliable, fabricated and manipulated evidence. The learned Judges unfortunately did not consider all these matters in their proper perspective.