BHAGWIM SAHAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court dated May 17, 1956. At the relevant time, i.e., between May 1, 1953, and June 2, 1954, the appellant was a Naib-Tehsildar at Ferozepur Jhirka in the district of Gurgaon. The allegation against the appellant was that during his tours in the several villages of Ferozepur Jhirka Tehsil, his son who was a Director of the Starline Pictures Ltd., a film company of Delhi, accompanied him and at the time of mutations the appellant asked the parties whose mutation he was attesting to purchase shares in the company of his son and that many of such persons on being so pressed by the appellant purchased shares and did so because they were asked by the appellant who showed them official favours.

(2.) The facts which have led to the conviction of the appellant are these. On June 8, 1954, the First Information Report against the appellant was filed under S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter termed the Act). It was based on a letter of the Deputy Commissioner who is also the Collector of the district enclosing with the letter the report of the Revenue Assistant, Gurgaon in an enquiry which he held against the appellant. The letter stated that the case felt within S. 5(1)(d) of the Act and suggested that the necessary sanction should be taken under S. 6 of the Act. Thereafter the sanction of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, was taken on 2-12-1954. By this document the Commissioner sanctioned the prosecution of the appellant under S. 5 of the Act. Cognizance of the case was taken on July 18, 1955, by Mr. Manohar Singh, Special Judge, Gurgaon but it was his successor who recorded the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution on various dates from 2-9-1955, up to 19-10-1955. On 2-11-1955, a charge was framed against the appellant under S. 5(1)(a) of the Act. After the charge the appellant cross-examined six prosecution witnesses and then examined some defence withnesses and after the arguments were heard the appellant was convicted on January 4, 1956, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The conviction was in the following words:

(3.) It was contended in the High Court that the action of the appellant did not amount to criminal misconduct as the appellant himself did not derive any advantage of a pecuniary nature and counsel there referred to the language of the charge framed which stated that the appellant "was in the habit of obtaining illegal gratification" but the High Court was of the opinion that the evidence was led in the presence of the appellant and he knew what the case against him was and what case he had to meet. The finding of the High Court may be stated in its own words: