MOHANDAS LALWANI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave by Mohandas Lalwani against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal of the Special Judge Bhopa1 and convicted the accused appellant under Section 165-A Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The Executive Engineer, Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HEL), Bhopal invited tenders for construction of four RCC overhead tanks, each of one lakh gallons capacity by a tender notice published on December 23, 1965. Four contractors, including the accused appellant, submitted their tenders. Those tenders were opened on February 1, 1966. It was found that the tender of the appellant, who had stipulated that he would use 18 tons of steel, was of the lowest amount. The other three contractors had stipulated that they would use 24 tons of steel.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on April 9, 1966 PW 1 Shivnarain Wadhwa, Chief Engineer Construction of HEL was present in his office. PW 5 Niranjanlal Shrivastava, Personal Assistant to the Chief Engineer was also present there. A partition divides the office of the Chief Engineer from the place where Shrivastava used to sit. At about 11.45 a.m. on that day, the appellant accompanied by two others, came to PW Shrivastava. The appellant gave visiting card P-4 to Shrivastava and said that he wanted to see the Chief Engineer. Shrivastava sent that card through a peon to Chief Engineer Wadhwa. A short time thereafter on being called by Wadhwa, the accused appellant accompanied by his two companions went inside the office of Wadhwa. On arrival there, the accused talked about his tender and stated that as his tender was the lowest, the same should be accepted. The accused also handed over copy P-3 of letter dated April 8, 1966 which had been addressed by him to the Executive Engineer in connection with the above tender. Wadhwa then told the accused that according to the information received by him, the accused had stipulated the use of only 18 tons of steel as against 24 tons stipulated by others. The accused, however, persisted in saying that his tender was the lowest. Wadhwa then told the accused that whatever he had to say in the matter, he should tell the Excutive Engineer and that he might also hand over a copy of his letter to the Assistant Chief Engineer. The two companions of the accused then left the office of Wadhwa, while the accused remained sitting there. Wadhwa then told the accused also to go, but the accused instead of going took out from the left pocket of his trousers an envelope and presented it to Wadhwa. Wadhwa could see that the envelope contained 100-rupee currency notes. Wadhwa reprimanded the accused for doing something wrong and at the same time he (Wadhwa) pressed the buzzer for his Personal Assistant. Shrivastava PW then came inside the office of Wadhwa. In the meantime, the accused had put back the envelope containing currency notes in the pocket of his trousers. On the arrival of Shrivastava, Wadhwa told him that the accused had given him bribe. Wadhwa also asked Shrivastava to take out the envelope from the pocket of the trousers of the accused. Shrivastava then took out the envelope containing currency notes from the trousers' pocket of the accused. There were thirty 100-rupee currency notes in that envelope. Wadhwa then rang up R. C. Gupta (PW 3), who is the Secretary and Vigilance Officer of HEL as well as Chandra Shekhar Tiwari (PW 4), who is the chief Security Officer of HEL. The offices of Gupta and Tiwari are also in the Administrative Building of HEL, in which building is situated the office of Wadhwa PW.

(3.) The case of the prosecution further is that on the arrival of Gupta and Tiwari PWs, Wadhwa narrated the facts about the offer of Rs. 3,000 by the accused to him as mentioned above. The accused then expressed his apologies and stated that he was sorry and ashamed for what he had done. The accused also requested that he might be forgiven and that otherwise he would lose his career as a contractor. When the accused offered his apologies, Wadhwa remarked that if the accused gave anything in writing, he would consider the matter. The accused thereupon wrote something on a piece of paper. As the writing was not found to be satisfactory, the same was not accepted by Wadhwa and the paper remained with the accused. Wadhwa then asked Shrivastava to take Lalwani to his room. Wadhwa thereafter asked for the advice of Gupta and Tiwari. It was then decide deaf that the matter should be reported to the police. Wadhwa thereupon called Shrivastava and dictated to him report P1. In the report the number of currency notes were also noted by Shrivastava. The report was then signed by Wadhwa. The accused and the report were thereafter sent to police station Govindpura. Formal first, information report P8 was prepares at the police station on the basis of report P1 and case was registered against the accused at 2.15 p.m. Complaint about the occurrence was thereafter filed in the court of the Special Judge Bhopal by Town Inspector Gurbir Singh May 20. 1966.