Case: Bhagat Ram Alias Bhagtu Ram Vs. Bhagat Ram &amp; Others

He was questioned as to the necessity of preparing this second manuscript. He replied that Bhagtu Ram, after perusing the first manuscript, said that the same was not legible, and therefore, he dictated the second manuscript Ex. P. W. 1/2, to the witness. Pressed further, Lal Chand had to admit that Bhagtu Ram was not very literate, although he could sign his name in Hindi. He however, added that Bhagtu Ram could read Hindi newspaper. He shifted this stand also and said that he had seen the appellant taking Hindi Newspaper and therefore, he presumed that Bhagtu Ram could read such newspapers. Inconsistently with his earlier position, the witness stated that after scribing the first manuscript, he read it over, without any difficulty, to Bhagtu Ram at the latters request. Questioned further, the witness tried to reconcile his contradictory versions by saying that Bhagtu Ram had simply gazed at the first manuscript for two minutes and then asked the witness to prepare the second manuscript.35. The appellants case which he later elaborated as R. W. 10 was that he had given several blank sheets of paper to P. W. 4 Suresh Chander. After the election, Lal Chand at the instance of Suresh Chander, prepared the manuscript Ex. P. W. 9/1, on one of those blank sheets and got the posters in question printed. Appellant got scent of it. He got that manuscript secretly removed from the Millan Press with the help of one Tayagi. After the mysterious disappearance of Ex. P. W. 9/1. Lal Chand, at the instance of Suresh Chander, prepared the second manuscript on a similar blank sheet of paper and got it produced by Sita Ram, Manager of the Press.36. The first part of the appellants case was put to Lal Chand without showing him Ex. P. W. 9/1. He denied that suggestion. He, however, perused Ex. P. W. 1/2 for a few second, and then categorically said that this was the second manuscript and not the first one. He significantly added that the figure "4000" below the manuscript must have been written by the press man. It was at this stage that Lal Chand was confronted with Ex. P. W. 9/1, which was then produced by the appellants Counsel. Lal Chand stated that this was the first manuscript prepared by him. He was asked to explain as to how and when it had been signed by the appellant. His discomfiture was manifest because according to his version the first manuscript had not been signed by the appellant. The witness further expressed ignorance as to who had written the figure "4000" on Ex. P. W. 9/1. Nor could Lal Chand give any explanation as to why on the first manuscript he had written the full description of the appellant below his signature. At this stage the second part of the defence case, regarding the disappearance of the first manuscript and the preparation of its substitute by the witness, was put to him. This suggestion was also denied.37. Sita Ram P. W. 1, the Manager of the Millan Press stated that he knew Bhagtu Ram (appellant) since 1966 as the latter used to come to his uncle. Witness had printed, apart from the poster in question, other material also in connection with the election of the appellant. Sita Ram produced the manuscript Ex. P. W. 1/2 and asserted that it had been given to him by the appellant on February 26, 1972 who was then accompanied by Lal Chand. Appellant asked the witness to print 4000 copies of the manuscript. Witness thereupon wrote the figure 4000 on the manuscript. Sita Ram further claimed that 4000 copies of the printed poster Ex. P. W. 1/1 were handed over to Lal Chand, after receiving the printing charges amounting to Rs. 64/ - on March 1, 1972.38. Sita Ram admitted in cross-examination that his press was installed only in 1970. The effect of this admission was two-fold: Firstly it falsified Lal Chands claim that the appellant had got posters printed from this Press in connection with the 1967 election. Secondly, it made Sita Rams claim about his acquaintance with Bhagtu Ram since 1966 , doubtful. In cross-examination, Sita Ram further revealed that he was not maintaining proper accounts and regular records. Acknowledgements of many customers had not been obtained. Sita Ram did nothing to comply with the requirements of Section 127-A of the Act with regard to the printing of the poster, Ex. P. W. 1/1. Sita Ram further disclosed that he was not paying any income-tax.39. The learned trial Judge has, in his judgment, brought out in bold relief the comics, antics, hesitations, prevarications, twists and turns of Lal Chand in the witness-box. He rightly appreciated this evidence in the setting that Lal Chand is one of the erstwhile strong supporters of the respondent and is acting like a jilted lady trying to teach the respondent a lesson". He suspected that Lal Chand might be playing "the villain-of the piece in the story of the poster". He found the story of the printing and publication of this poster told by Lal Chand and Sita Ram inconsistent with the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. In that context, after stressing that Lal Chand, Suresh Chander were seasoned politicians, wholly in-charge of the election campaign of the appellant, a complete simpleton, the learned Judge observed:"Lal Chand P. W. the scribe of the poster was an experienced election worker who was keenly interested in the respondent during the election days. It is inconceivable that if the respondent in fact dictated such a defamatory poster to Lal Chand, he would not tell the respondent that the publication of a poster containing those allegations was likely to create trouble for him. Again Lal Chand must have been aware of the fact that if his hand in the publication of the poster was proved, he may render himself liable to prosecution for defamation or make him liable for damages for libel of the petitioner."40. Thu

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

Explanation:
1[ds]23. It is not disputed that this statement bears the signature of the appellant. Bhagtu Ram explained that he was an illiterate man, and he had left all theincluding the preparation of return of election expenses entirely to Chander Singh, Advocate and Pt. Suresh Chander who prepared it and got it typed and then presented it to him for signature. Bhagtu Ram could not say whether his signatures were obtained by Chander Singh and Suresh Chander on two or three such returns. Witness expressed ignorance as to how many of those returns wereand how manyEven the return Ex. P. W. 6/1 was not prepared or typed in the presence of the witness. Witness did not care to check up before signing the returns of election expenses put up to him for signatures as to what was the total figure of expenses shown in each of them. On furtherBhagtu Ram stated that Chaudhary Inder Singh and Pt. Suresh Chander had obtained his signatures on two or four large blank sheets, besides hundreds ofHe did not ask them why his signatures were being obtained on blank sheets of paper. The entire record used to remain with Pt. Suresh Chander. Bhagtu Ram has said that he had such a confidence in Pt. Suresh Chander and Chander Singh that had entrusted "his life to them". He emphatically denied having ever hired or used jeeps Nos.98 in connection with his election.24. The learned trial Judge noted that the hiring charges stated in Ex. R. W. 10/1, did not "tally with the amount mentioned in the charge levelled by the petitioner". Again, later on, he observed : "The entry in the return Ex. R. W. 10/l, alone cannot be relied upon for proving the particular charge against respondent No. 1 as it is the admitted case of both sides that the amounts mentioned in the return were not correct". Nevertheless, the learned Judge held that "Ex. R. W. 10/1, can be utilized for the purpose of corroborating other evidence."25. In our opinion, the circumstances delineated by Bhagtu Ram coupled with the dubious manner in which Ex. R. W. 10/1 was smuggled into the case at a very late stage, were sufficient to condemn it as totally unworthy of reliance. It was of no use even for corroboration. Far from corroborating, it stood in sharp contradiction to the evidence given by P.Ws.10 and 11 on all the essential points in issue, namely, the amount of the hiring charges, the rate of hire and the period of hiring. Even as a previous statement, it could be used only to corroborate its author, and not P. Ws. 10 and 11. In any case, Ex. R. W. 10/1, does not lend any assurance to the oral evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 11 on material points.26. The second piece of evidence, which according to Shri Dikshit corroborates the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 11, consists of two credit memos/entries, datedoks of M/s. Chiranji Lal Sardha Ram. The first, Ex. P. W. 4/46 evidences that petrol/oil worth Rs. 351.78 was drawn for vehicle No.by Risal Singh. The other, Ex. P. W. 4/47, shows that on the same datepetrol worth Rs. 30:46 was drawn by vehicle No. HRJ 698. The name of the person at whose instance this petrol was given, is not entered therein.27. In the first place, as held by the High Court, in the accounts of the said firm some interpolations had been made "to show that entries after January 9, 1972 in the Rokar relate to respondent No. 1" and that "this is a crude attempt at creating evidence against respondent No. 1". Secondly, Ex. P. W. 4/46 and Ex. P. W. 4/47 do not evidence that these vehicles (HRB 3638 and HRJ 698) were on hire with the appellant on that day. At the most they show the possible use of these vehicles on March 1, 1972 only in connection with the election. Thus, even if Ex. 4/46 and Ex. 4/47 were genuine, they would corroborate the oral testimony of P. Ws. 10 and 11 only to an insignificant extent. They furnish no corroboration of their evidence in material particulars, namely, the hiring of these jeeps, the rate of the hire and the period of the hire.28. In the light of the above discussion the conclusion is inescapable that the evidence of the drivers of the aforesaid jeeps had not been substantially corroborated by other unimpeachable evidence, oral or documentary. Bearing in mind the hostile atmosphere in which the case was conceived and the vindictive spirit in which it has been piloted by the erstwhile workers of the appellant, we think, the uncorroborated oral testimony furnished by Chander Singh and Hazoora Singh had failed to establish the allegations in the petition relating to items (i) and (ii). Accordingly, we reverse the findings of the. High Court regarding these items.Lal Chand P. W. 9 is the star witness of the petitioner with regard to the printing and publication of the above poster. He is the Sarpanch of Kamalpur, a village in Kalayat Assembly Constituency. He was a worker and Polling Agent of the appellant in the election. He stated that the manuscript Ex. P. W. 1/2 was written by him at the dictation of Bhagtu Ram (appellant) in his election office at Kalayat on February 26, 1972 at about 9 a. m. At about 11 a m., witness accompanied the appellant to a Press, having a name like "Millan" at Rampura. At the Press, Bhagtu Ram handed over the manuscript Ex. P . W. 1/2 to the Manager, and directed him to print 4000 copies thereof. The Manager asked Bhagtu Ram to sign the manuscript. Bhagtu Ram thereupon pointed out his signature on the manuscript. Bhagtu Ram wanted the posters to be printed on the same day. The Manager expressed his inability to print the posters before March 1,1972. Bhagtu Ram then told the Manager that the posters would be collected onThe printing charges were settled at Rs.The witness was thereafter sent by Bhagtu Ram with Rs. 100/to the Press for collecting the posters. Accordingly, on March 1, 1972, he collected the printed posters on payment of Rs.and wrote the acknowledgement Ex. P. W.on the carbon copy of the bill Ex. P. W. 1/6. On March 2, 1972, witness accompanied Bhagtu Ram in his jeep along with others, and went to villages, namely Simla, Bahr, Wazir Nagar, Kod and Kharl, where the posters were distributed mostly by the other persons with them.34.Lal Chand stated that Bhagtu Ram had dictated one more manuscript apart from Ex. P. W. I/2. He was questioned as to the necessity of preparing this second manuscript. He replied that Bhagtu Ram, after perusing the first manuscript, said that the same was not legible, and therefore, he dictated the second manuscript Ex. P. W. 1/2, to the witness. Pressed further, Lal Chand had to admit that Bhagtu Ram was not very literate, although he could sign his name in Hindi. He however, added that Bhagtu Ram could read Hindi newspaper. He shifted this stand also and said that he had seen the appellant taking Hindi Newspaper and therefore, he presumed that Bhagtu Ram could read such newspapers. Inconsistently with his earlier position, the witness stated that after scribing the first manuscript, he read it over, without any difficulty, to Bhagtu Ram at the latters request. Questioned further, the witness tried to reconcile his contradictory versions by saying that Bhagtu Ram had simply gazed at the first manuscript for two minutes and then asked the witness to prepare the second manuscript.35. The appellants case which he later elaborated as R. W. 10 was that he had given several blank sheets of paper to P. W. 4 Suresh Chander. After the election, Lal Chand at the instance of Suresh Chander, prepared the manuscript Ex. P. W. 9/1, on one of those blank sheets and got the posters in question printed. Appellant got scent of it. He got that manuscript secretly removed from the Millan Press with the help of one Tayagi. After the mysterious disappearance of Ex. P. W. 9/1. Lal Chand, at the instance of Suresh Chander, prepared the second manuscript on a similar blank sheet of paper and got it produced by Sita Ram, Manager of the Press.36. The first part of the appellants case was put to Lal Chand without showing him Ex. P. W. 9/1. He denied that suggestion. He, however, perused Ex. P. W. 1/2 for a few second, and then categorically said that this was the second manuscript and not the first one. He significantly added that the figure "4000" below the manuscript must have been written by the press man. It was at this stage that Lal Chand was confronted with Ex. P. W. 9/1, which was then produced by the appellants Counsel. Lal Chand stated that this was the first manuscript prepared by him. He was asked to explain as to how and when it had been signed by the appellant. His discomfiture was manifest because according to his version the first manuscript had not been signed by the appellant. The witness further expressed ignorance as to who had written the figure "4000" on Ex. P. W. 9/1. Nor could Lal Chand give any explanation as to why on the first manuscript he had written the full description of the appellant below his signature. At this stage the second part of the defence case, regarding the disappearance of the first manuscript and the preparation of its substitute by the witness, was put to him. This suggestion was also denied.37. Sita Ram P. W. 1, the Manager of the Millan Press stated that he knew Bhagtu Ram (appellant) since 1966 as the latter used to come to his uncle. Witness had printed, apart from the poster in question, other material also in connection with the election of the appellant. Sita Ram produced the manuscript Ex. P. W. 1/2 and asserted that it had been given to him by the appellant on February 26, 1972 who was then accompanied by Lal Chand. Appellant asked the witness to print 4000 copies of the manuscript. Witness thereupon wrote the figure 4000 on the manuscript. Sita Ram further claimed that 4000 copies of the printed poster Ex. P. W. 1/1 were handed over to Lal Chand, after receiving the printing charges amounting to Rs. 64/on March 1, 1972.38. Sita Ram admitted inthat his press was installed only in 1970. The effect of this admission wasFirstly it falsified Lal Chands claim that the appellant had got posters printed from this Press in connection with the 1967 election. Secondly, it made Sita Rams claim about his acquaintance with Bhagtu Ram since 1966 , doubtful. InSita Ram further revealed that he was not maintaining proper accounts and regular records. Acknowledgements of many customers had not been obtained. Sita Ram did nothing to comply with the requirements of SectionThe learned trial Judge has, in his judgment, brought out in bold relief the comics, antics, hesitations, prevarications, twists and turns of Lal Chand in theHe rightly appreciated this evidence in the setting that Lal Chand is one of the erstwhile strong supporters of the respondent and is acting like a jilted lady trying to teach the respondent a lesson". He suspected that Lal Chand might be playing "thethe piece in the story of the poster". He found the story of the printing and publication of this poster told by Lal Chand and Sita Ram inconsistent with the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. In that context, after stressing that Lal Chand, Suresh Chander were seasoned politicians, whollyof the election campaign of the appellant, a complete simpleton, the learned JudgeChand P. W. the scribe of the poster was an experienced election worker who was keenly interested in the respondent during the election days. It is inconceivable that if the respondent in fact dictated such a defamatory poster to Lal Chand, he would not tell the respondent that the publication of a poster containing those allegations was likely to create trouble for him. Again Lal Chand must have been aware of the fact that if his hand in the publication of the poster was proved, he may render himself liable to prosecution for defamation or make him liable for damages for libel of the petitioner.Thus after a careful and close scrutiny of the statements of P. Ws. Lal Chand and Sita Ram, the Judge did not find them worthy of credit. As against them, he preferred to believe the evidence of R. W. 1 Shamsher Singh, Advocate, that no poster like the one in question was distributed in the Constituency at any time before the election. He further found that there was a reasonable possibility of the defence suggestion being true. He concludedpossibility of the poster in dispute having been got printed by some friend or associate of the petitioner after the election cannot be ruled out. Nor can the possibility of both the manuscripts having been prepared onbearing the signatures of the respondent which were in the hands of his earlier workers (who have now turned his enemies) can be excluded.