18 December 1970
Supreme Court


Case number: Appeal (civil) 1738 of 1969






DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/12/1970


CITATION:  1971 AIR  856            1971 SCR  (3) 257  1969 SCC  (3) 868  CITATOR INFO :  R          1974 SC  47  (16,26)  F          1974 SC  66  (55)  R          1979 SC 154  (17,18)  R          1992 SC2206  (9)

ACT: Representation  of the People Act, 1951,  s.  98-Proceedings for ’naming’ person responsible for corrupt practice-Finding given  by  High Court Circumstances in which  Supreme  Court would-reconsider. Press  and  Registration of Books Act, 1867,  s.  7-Person’s name printed as editor in paper and recorded with Registrar- If responsible for everything printed in  paper--Presumption as to-If can be rebutted.

HEADNOTE: At the time of dismissing an appeal by the appellant against the finding by the High Court that the appellant was  guilty of a corrupt practice under s. 123(4) of the  Representation of  the People Act, 1951, the Supreme Court directed that  S an  editor,  publisher  and printer of  a  daily  newspaper, Mahakoshal  which published the offending material  relevant to  the  personal  character  or  conduct  of  one  of   the candidates,  should be given a notice to show cause  why  he should not be named under s. 98. At  the  hearing pursuant to the notice issued by  the  High Court,  S  admitted  that he  was  the  registered  printer, publisher  and editor of the newspaper in the record of  the Press  Register at the relevant time and that the  offending material  was published in the, Mahakoshal; but  he  claimed that  it was so printed without his knowledge, that  he  had left the entire     management of the newspaper with T,  and did  not himself come to learn about the  publication  until after the election petition was filed.  After        hearing further evidence, the High Court accepted the plea set up by S. In  the appeal to this Court it was contended on  behalf  of two interveners who had undertaken the defence of the appeal that S was liable   to be named under s. 98, (i) in view  of the provisions of section 7 of the Press and Registration of



Books Act, 1867, and the fact that S was     the  registered printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper; (ii) because in   certain  proceedings  taken  in  the  High  Court   for committing the editor    of the same newspaper for  contempt of court for publishing certain scurrilous matter concerning a Civil Judge in 1962, S had admitted his    responsibility for  the publication and tendered an apology; (iii)  because on  October 24, 1963, the first respondent had  addressed  a letter to S    inviting his attention to the publication  of the offending matter in April May,   1963,  which  was   the subject  matter of the election petition, requiring  him  to disclose  the identity of the writer within three  days  and stating  that otherwise S would be assumed to be the  author of the publication; S had no reply to the said letter. HELD : The order passed by the High Court must be confirmed. (i) Section 7 raises a presumption that a person whose  name is printed in a copy of the newspaper is the editor of every portion of that issue.   However,  this presumption  may  be rebutted  by  evidence. In a charge under s. 123(4)  of  the Representation  of the People Act, the presumption under  s’ 7  would come with greater or, less force, according to  the circumstances,  to  the aid of a person  claiming  that  the editor was res- 3-L807Sup.CI/71 258 ponsible  for the publication and that the, publication  was to the knowledge of the editor.  The High Court had accepted the  testimony of S and T to the effect that T was  in  sole management  of  the newspaper at the relevant  time  and  no reason  was shown why this Court should not agree with  this conclusion.   Granting  that  there  was  close  association between  the  appellant  and  S,  and  even  granting   that Mahakoshal was exclusively carrying on propaganda on  behalf of  the appellant, unless there was evidence to prove the  S had  either  authorised  the publication  of  the  offending matter,  or  had undertaken to be responsible  for  all  the publications  made in the Mahakoshal, no inference that  the offending  publications were made to the knowledge and  with the consent of S may be raised. [262 E-G; 264 E] A  proceeding for naming a person who is  found  responsible for  publication of offending matter is in the nature  of  a quasi-criminal  proceeding.  In an appeal against the  order of the High Court holding on appreciation of evidence that a person  charged  before the High Court is not proved  to  be guilty  of a corrupt practice, this Court does not  normally proceed  to reappraise the evidence, unless the  High  Court has misconceived the evidence or the conclusion is  perverse or  so basically faulty that. interference by this Court  is attracted,  of  the  procedure  adopted  by  the  Court  has resulted  in miscarriage of justice or for similar  reasons. [261 A] Amar  Nath  v. Lachman Singh & Ors.  C.A. No. 1717  of  1968 decided  on  Dec. 23, 1968; Jagdev Singh  v.  Pratap  Singh, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 183; Dr.  M. Chenna Reddy v. Y.  Ramchandra Rao and Anr., C.A. No. 1149 of 1968 decided on Dec. 17, 1968 and Meghraj Patodia v. R. K. Birla and Ors. [1971] 2  S.C.R. 118; referred to. (ii)The position taken by S in the contempt proceedings  was not  inconsistent  with  the case set up  by  him  in  these proceedings.   Although responsibility for  publication  was accepted by him, he had clearly stated that the  publication of news-item from the correspondents were attended to by the sub-editors  and that he generally laid down the  policy  of the newspaper and gave general directions.  He admitted  his responsibility  because  he  was the Chief  Editor  and  not



because  he  personally had, with  knowledge  published  the article which constituted contempt of Court. [265 D] (iii)     If  the  story of S that he came to  know  of  the offending publications for the first time after the petition was filed is accepted, failure to repudiate the publications after  the election petition was filed will not lead  to  an inference  against  S  that  he  was  responsible  for   the publications. [266 C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1738  of 1969. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated March-12,  1969  of the Madhya Pradesh High Court  in  First Appeal No. 49 of 1967. E.   C. Agarwal, for the appellant. M.   C.  Setalvad,  S.  V.  Gupte,  K.  A.  Chitale,  U.  N. Bachawat, A. K. Verma, Sreenivasa Rao and J. B. Dadachanji, for Mr. S. C. Shukla. M.   C.  Chagla, R. S. Dabir, Rameshwar Nath  and  Swaranjit Sodhi, for respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 259 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah C.J. In compliance with our order dated March 13,  1970 the High Court issued a notice to Shukla.  Shukla  submitted his reply contending inter alia, that he did not publish or cause  to  be  published the  offending  statements  in  the newspaper  Mahakoshal  as alleged by Sharma.   In  paragraph 1(ii) he submitted ’that               "He learnt about their publication only  after               and  during  the  pendency  of  the   election               petition  for declaration of the  election  of               Shri D. P. Mishra as void.  The person in sole               charge  of the newspaper was Shri  Vishnudatta               Mishra  ’Tarangi’ whose name has been  printed               as the Editor.  The declaration under Rule  8,               Form   VI  prescribed  under  the  Press   and               Registration  of Books Act (No.  XXV of  1867)               for  the  year 1963 shows that the  said  Shri               Vishnudatta  Mishra  ’Tarangi’  and  not   the               opposite party (Shukla) was the editor at  the               material  time............... At the  time  of               his  appointment  the  said  Shri  Vishnudatta               Mishra ’Tarangi’ had insisted that there would               be,  no  interference by  the  opposite  party               (Shukla) in the conduct of the newspaper." Several  witnesses  were examined before the High  Court  in support of the case that Shukla was instrumental in publish- ing  and distributing the offending statements Annexures  I, II  & III in the daily newspaper Mahakoshal of which  Shukla was  the editor, printer and publisher.  Some witnesses  who had been previously examined were recalled for  examination. Shukla and Tarangi were also examined at the hearing. At  the  hearing of the appeal and in  the  proceedings  for naming  Shula,  Sharma  the petitioner  who  instituted  the election  petition  took no interest.  But two  persons  who were  permitted  to intervene in the  proceeding  took  upon themselves  the defence of the appeal and also to  prosecute the proceeding after it stood remanded to the High Court. The  interveners  submitted that Shukla  had  published  the offending  matter contained in Annexures I, II & III.   They said  that-(1) D. P. Mishra prepared the  offending  matter,



read  it  over  to  Shukla and handed it  over  to  him  for publication and the same was published in the Mahakoshal and was  widely  distributed; (2) the copies  of  the  newspaper containing the offending matter were personally  distributed by  Shukla;  and (3) Shukla was the printer,  publisher  and editor  of the newspaper land was the owner of the  Printing Press in which the copies 260 of the newspaper were printed, that he was attending to  the publication  of the newspaper and copies of  the.  newspaper were supplied to him and that "Tarangi had nothing  whatever to  do with the publication of the newspaper Mahakoshal"  at the relevant time. The  High  Court  on a review of the  evidence  was  of  the opinion  that the case under the first and the second  heads in  support of the plea of the interveners was  not  proved. The High Court also held that even though the name of Shukla was printed in the newspaper Mahakoshal as the Chief  Editor and  that  fact  was printed in the  report  of  the  Press- Registrar  published for the information of  the  Government showing that Shukla was between the years 1962 and 1965, the publisher,  printer and editor of Mahakoslial,  that  Shukla had in June 1962 appointed Tarangi as editor of  Mahakoshal, that  Tarangi  was in exclusive charge of  the  publication; that Shukla was not at the relevant time when the  offending matter  was  published  attending  to  the  publication   of Mahakoshal; that Shukla had no knowledge of the  publication of the offending matter till it was brought to his notice in the  course  of the election petition; that Shukla  was  not proved to be the agent of Mishra and that even if it be held that  he  was the agent of Mishra, it was  not  proved  that Mishra  had  given  his consent to the  publication  of  the offending matter in the Mahakoshal. Section  123(4)  of the Representation of the  People  ’Act, 1951, provides :               "The  publication by a candidate or his  agent               or  by any other person, of any  statement  of               fact  which  is  false, and  which  he  either               believes to be false or does not believe to be               true, in relation to the personal character or               conduct  of any candidate, or in  relation  to               the candidature, or withdrawal, or  retirement               from  contest,  of  any  candidate,  being   a               statement  reasonably calculated to  prejudice               the prospects of that candidate’s election", is a corrupt practice.  Section 99(1) requires the  Tribunal in  making an order under s. 98 to record the names  of  all persons,  if any, who are proved at the trial to  have  been guilty  of  any  corrupt practice and  the  nature  of  that practice.   But a person not a party to the petition  cannot be  named in the order, unless he has been given  notice  to appear  before the Tribunal and to show cause why he  should not  be  so  named, and if he appears in  pursuance  of  the notice, he has been given an opportunity of  cross-examining any  witness who has already been examined by  the  Tribunal and  has given evidence against him, of calling evidence  in his defence and of being heard. 261 A  proceeding for naming a person who is  found  responsible for  publication of offending matter is in the nature  of  a quasicriminal proceeding.  In an appeal against the order of the  High Court holding on appreciation of evidence  that  a person  charged  before the High Court is not proved  to  be guilty  of a corrupt practice, this Court does not  normally proceed  to reappraise the evidence, unless the  High  Court



has misconceived the evidence or the conclusion is, perverse or  so basically faulty that interference by this  Court  is attracted or the procedure adopted by the Court has resulted in miscarriage of _justice or for similar reasons.  See Amar Nath  v.   Lachman Singh & Ors(1); Jagdev  Singh  v.  Pratap Singh  (2)  ; Dr. M. Chenna Reddy v. V. Ramchandra  Rao  and Anr.(3); and Meghraj Patodia v. R. K. Birla and Ors.(4). Mr.  Chagla on behalf of the interveners contended that  the conclusion  of the High Court was perverse because the  High Court had ignored important circumstances and evidence bear- ing on the question in dispute, and had reached a conclusion wholly  inconsistent with normal probabilities.  In  dealing with  this  contention  we may first  eliminate  matters  in respect of which there is no serious controversy.  Annexures I,  II  &  III which constitute the  offending  matter  were published  in the newspaper Mahakoshal during the course  of the  election  campaign  of D.  P.  Mishra.   The  newspaper Mahakoshal  was  published  from  Raipur,  and  Shukla   was registered  as  the  printer, publisher and  editor  in  the record  of the Press Registrar.  The issues dated April  12, April  26  and May 4, 1963, were printed in  the  Mahakoshal Printing  Press  and were published  and  distributed.   The matter  published  in those issues was in  relation  to  the personal character and conduct of Sharma and in relation  to his   candidature.  it  was  also  a  statement   reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of Sharma’s election. Shukla admitted that the offending matter was published  but claimed  that it was printed in the Mahakoshal  without  his knowledge.    He  claimed  that  he  had  left  the   entire management of the newspaper with Tarangi and that he did not come  to  learn  about the  publication  till  the  election petition was filed. The  High Court accepted the plea set up by Shukla  that  he did  not know about the publication of the offending  matter at  or about the time when it was published.  In support  of the  contention  that  Shukla was liable to  be  named,  Mr. Chagla  relied  upon s. 7 of the Press and  Registration  of Books Act, 1867, upon (1)  C.A. No. 1717 of 1968 decided on Dec. 23, 1968 (2)  A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 183 (3)  C.A. No. 1149 of 1968 decided on Dec. 17, 1968 (4)  [1971] 2 S.C.R. 118 262 certain proceedings  in contempt taken before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in which Shukla had admitted his responsi- bility in regard to the publication made some time, in  June 1963  and also upon the service of a notice upon  Shukla  by Sharma  who filed the election petition requiring Shukla  to disclose  certain facts regarding the publication, upon  the evidence  that Shukla was closely associated with Mishra  in carrying  on  the  election campaign,  and  that  the  daily Mahakoshal  carried on propaganda exclusively on  behalf  of Mishra  and not of any other candidate.   Counsel  submitted that  Shukla’s  denial could not be accepted  as  there  was clear  evidence  that copies of the  daily  Mahakoshal  were supplied  at his residence at all relevant times and  it  is unlikely that he did not read them. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act,  1867, insofar as it is relevant, provides               "In  any legal proceeding  whatever...........               the production of . . . ., in the case of  the               editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his               name.  printed  on it as that  of  the  editor               shall be held (unless the contrary be  proved)               to  be  sufficient evidence,  as  against  the



             person whose name shall be . . . . printed  on               such newspaper, that the said person was . . .               the  editor of every portion of that issue  of               the newspaper of which a copy is produced." Section  7 raises a presumption that a person whose name  is printed  in a copy of the newspaper is the editor  of  every portion  of that issue.  The presumption may be rebutted  by evidence.  In the copies of Mahakoshal dated April 12, April 26, and May 4 1963, it was printed that Shukla was the Chief Editor.   Shukla  was  also described  as  the  printer  and publisher  of the newspaper.  The presumption under s. 7  of the Press and Registration of Books Act, undoubtedly arises, but in a charge under s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People  Act  the  presumption under s. 7 of  the  Press  and Registration of Books Act, 1867, would come with greater  or less  force, according to the circumstances to the aid of  a person  claiming  that the editor was  responsible  for  the publication and that the publication was to the knowledge of editor. Tarangi in his evidence has stated that he was working  bet- ween  June 1962 to January 1964 as editor of Mahakoshal  and that he was in sole incharge of the newspaper including  its management, and that he was solely responsible for  editing, printing and publishing the newspaper, and that he had  made a special condition when accepting his appointment as editor that he 263 would  be  in  sole  charge  of  managing  and  editing  the newspaper.  He said that Shukla never visited the office  of Mahakoshal  during  the period of his management.  that  he- Tarangi-wrote Annexures I, II & III and got them printed and published,   that  he  had  written  them  by   himself   on information  which he received, and not at the  instance  of any  other person, that he had not obtained the  consent  of Shukla  before writing or publishing the  offending  matter, and  that  when  he  heard the  matter  contained  in  those articles h.-, thought that it had news valued and he printed and  published  it.   He also stated  that  Shukla  was  not informed of the offending matter. Tarangi  had  printed on March 1, 1963, a statement  in  the daily  issue of Mahakoshal that he was the editor.  That  is clear from’ Annexure A. It was urged by Chagla that  Shukla, to  conceal  his activities in the course of  the  elections which  it was expected would take place in the  near  future made  a mere appearance of printing the name of  Tarangi  as editor,  while in fact he remained the editor and in  charge of  management of the Mahakoshal.  But it is clear from  the issues of the Mahakoshal daily dated July 11, July 16,  July 30, July 31, September 24, October 12 and October 18.  1962, that  on the title page Tarangi was ,shown as the editor  of the newspaper.  The story that Tarangi was, placed in charge of  the newspaper Mahakoshal between June 1962  and  January 1964 is amply supported by copies of the Mahakoshal produced in the Court.  It is not in dispute that in the  publication of  the newspaper Mahakoshal which contained  the  offending Annexures  I, II & III it was, published that  ’Tarangi  was the editor. Shukla  stated in his evidence that he had left  Tarangi  in sole management of the newspaper, that during the months  of April and May 1963 he visited his house at Raipur only once, and  that he had no occasion to read the previous issues  of the  Mahakoshal.  Shukla said that he was moving about  from place  to  place  during that period.  The  High  Court  has accepted  that  testimony and we see no reason  to  disagree with  the same.  Annexure A on which reliance is placed  was



made pursuant to s. 19D (b)   of the Press and  Registration of Books Act, 1867.  There was     no attempt to prove  that the return submitted before the Press   Registrar   differed from the return published under s. 19D (b).  Section  19K(c) makes  it an offence for the publisher of any  newspaper  to publish  in pursuance of cl. (b) of S. 19D  any  particulars relating to the newspaper which he has reason to believe  to be  false.   Mr. Chagla contended that  Shukla  should  have taken  steps to produce before the High Court  the  original return or at any rate a copy of the return filed before  the Press Registrar.  We do not think that in the  circumstances of the case 264 any such obligation lay upon Shukla.  If it was the case  of the  interveners  that the statement in Annexure A  was  not consistent  with the return made to he Press Registrar  they could  have summoned the Press Registrar or a member of  his Office with the original return.  But that was not done.  It is  true  that in the annual report published by  the  Press Registrar  for  the use of the Central Government  for  the, years  1963,  1964  and 1965 Shukla alone is  shown  as  the editor  of  Mahakoshal and the name of Tarangi  is  not  all mentioned.   But  the annual report of the  Press  Registrar which contains hundreds of entries is secondary evidence  of the  contents of the return.  There is no reason  why,  when the interveners have made no atempt to have the original re- turn  produced,  we  should  accept  the  annual  report  as probative of the fact that Tarangi’s name was not  mentioned in  the return submited to the Press Registrar.  The  annual report  is only for the information of the Government and  a mere summary in the annual report, to which the  Legislature has not attached any importance and which is not made  under any  statutory provision, cannot be regarded  as  displacing the effect of a statutory provision made under s. 19D(b)  of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Granting that there was close association between Mishra and Shukla  and  even granting that Mahakoshal  was  exclusively carrying on propaganda on behalf of Mishra, unless there  is evidence  to  prove that Shukla had  either  authorised  the publication of the offending matter, or had undertaken to be responsible for all the publications made in the Mabakoshal, no  inference that the offending publications were  made  to the knowledge and with the consent of Shukla may be raised. Strong  reliance was placed by Mr. Chagla upon  two  circum- stances : (i) that in certain proceedings taken in the  High Court  for committing the editor of Mahakoshal for  contempt of  court  for publishing in June, 1962  certain  scurrilous matter  concerning  a  Civil  Judge.   Shukla  admitted  his responsibility for the publication and tendered apology; and (ii)  that  Shukla  did not send any reply  to  the notice served by Sharma, and published no repudiation. The circumstances in which the proceeding for commitment for contempt of court was started may first be set out.  On June 16,  1.963,  a news-item defamatory of one  R.  P.  Awasthy, Civil  Judge, was published in Mabakoshal I. The District  & Sessions Judge,, Bilaspur, submitted the papers relating  to the publication, to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh with  a report  that  one Dr. Saraf Baloda a correspondent  of  ’the newspaper   was   responsible  for  the   publication,   and recommended that proceeding 265 be started for committing for contempt Saraf and the editor, printer  and  publisher  of the  newspaper.   A  notice  was issue,. to the editor, printer and publisher of  Mahakoshal. Shukla  appeared before the High Court and admitted that  he



was  the Chief Editor of the paper, but he stated  that  the day to day work was done by the Sub-Editors, that he used to lay down the principle and policy of the paper and also gave general  directions,  that  the  news  item  received   from correspondents  from various places was scrutinised  by  the Sub-editors  and the sub-editors that on June 16, 1963  they did  not understand the implications of the offending  news- item,  and  published  it,  and that when  it  came  to  his (Shuklas)  notice he immediately published  a  contradiction and  expressed  his regret.  He said that  being  the  Chief Editor  he accepted his responsibility.  He  submitted  that since amends had been made soon after the facts came to  his notice,  his apology to the "concerned officer and  assuring him  that no item will be published from the  correspondent" be  accepted.  In view of this apology no action  was  taken against  him  by  the High Court.  The  statement  filed  by Shukla  is not inconsistent with the case set up by  him  in this   proceeding.   Responsibility  for   publication   was accepted  by.  him  but  he  had  clearly  stated  that  the publication  of  news-items  from  the  correspondents  were attended to by the Sub--editors, and that he ’generally laid down   the  policy  of  the  newspaper  and   gave   general directions.   He admitted his responsibility because he  was the  Chief  Editor, and not because he personally  had  with knowledge  published the article which constituted  contempt of Court. On October 24, 1963, Sharma addressed a letter to Shukla  as printer,  publisher  and editor of Mahakoshal  inviting  his attention  to the three Annexures 1, II and III dated  April 12,  April  26 and May 4, 1963 and calling  upon  Shukla  to "disclose the full identity of the writer within three  days of  his  receiving the letter." He intimated  that  in  case Shukla  failed to comply with the request, he  would  assume that  Shukla was the author of the publications,  and  would take  suitable  legal  action.  No reply was  sent  to  this letter.  Nor did Shukla publish any repudiation that it  was without his knowledge that the matter was published.  Shukla has  in his evidence stated that after receiving the  letter he consulted his lawyer, and he was "advised that reply  was not necessary" and it "was not proper to send a reply".   He stated that he remembered that his counsel advised him  that since he was "involved in the petition" he should not act on the   letter.   These  matters  were  elicited   in   cross- examination  by  counsel for the  interveners.   Mr.  Chagla submitted  that the testimony of Shukla in this  behalf  may not be accepted, because the lawyer had not been examined as a  witness  and even his name was not  disclosed.   But  the matter was not probed further by the cross 266 examiner nor any question asked which would suggest that any doubt  was  sought to be thrown on the testimony  of  Shukla that he acted on the advise given by his lawer.  It is  true that  no repudiation of Annexture I, II & III was  published in  the Mahakoshal, even after the letter was received  from Sharma.   But  it must be remembered that in  June  1963  an election  petition was filed for setting aside the  election of Mishra and in paragraph 5 it was asserted that  Annexures I,  II & III were published in the newspaper  Mahakoshal  of which Shukla was the printer, publisher and editor.  It  was further  asserted that Shukla was the agent of  Mishra.   If the story of Shukla that till October 1962 he was not  aware of  the  offending publications and he came to know  of  the publications  for  the first time be  accepted,  failure  to repudiate  the publications after the election petition  was filed  will  not,  in our judgment,  lead  to  an  inference



against   Shukla   that   he  was   responsible for   the publications. We  have carefully considered the evidence and  the  circum- stances,  and  we  do  not think that a  case  is  made  out justifying  us in taking a view different from the  view  of the High Court.  The proceeding before us is  quasi-criminal in character, and this Court will not normally disagree with the  view  of  the  High Court, where  the  High  Court  has reached,  on appreciation of evidence, the  conclusion  that the corrupt practice charged against a person is not proved. This Court has jurisdiction in appropriate cases to disagree with the conclusion reached by the High Court, but the power to  interfere is sparingly exercised.  It is  not  exercised merely  because  this  Court  may take  on  the  evidence  a different   view.   An  appellate  Court  is  reluctant   to disregard  the  conclusion  on matters  of  appreciation  of evidence  by  the  Court which had  occasion  to  watch  the demeanour  of  the  witnesses examined  before  it,  and  to substitute its own view thereon.  Where the proceeding triad by  the  Court  of First Instance  is  of  a  quasi-criminal nature,  the reluctance of the appellate court  is  greater. The  question  is  not  one of power  or  authority  of  the appellate court, but of the respect and consideration due to the  Court of First Instance, and of the limit  inherent  in the exercise of the appellate functions. The  order  passed by the High Court is  confirmed.   Having regard  to the circumstances of the case, there will  be  no order  as  to costs of the proceeding against  Shukla.   The appeal  filed  by  Mishra  will  be  dismissed.   Since  the original  applicant  Sharma did not appear  in  this  Court, there will be no order as to costs in appeal. Appeal dismissed. R.K.P.S. 267