C S D SWAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Chandigarh, dated April 11, 1957, affirming those of the Special Judge, Delhi, dated January 19, 1955, convicting the appellant under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947). The sentence passed upon the appellant was six months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The facts leading up to this appeal, may shortly be stated as follows:During and after the Second World War, with a view to augmenting the food resources of the country, the Government of India instituted a "Grow More food Division" in the Ministry of Agriculture. S. Y. Krishnaswamy, a Joint Secretary in that Ministry, was placed in charge of that Division, with effect from January 2, 1947. The appellant was working in that Department as Director of Fertilizers. He was a former employee of the well-known producers of fertilizers, etc., called "Imperial Chemical Industries." Fertilizers were in short supply and, therefore, large quantities of such fertilizers had to be imported from abroad. As chemical fertilizers were in short supply not only in India but elsewhere also, an international body known as the "International Emergency Food Council" (I.E.F.C.) had been set up in United States of America, and India was a member of the same. That body used of consider the requirements of different countries in respect of fertilizers, and used to make allotments. Russia was not a member of that organization. Towards the end of 1946, a Bombay firm, called 'Messrs. Nanavati and Company', which used to deal in fertilizers and had business contacts with Russia, offered to supply ammonium sulphate from Russia to the Government of India. In the years 1947 and 1948, considerable quantities of ammonium sulphate were obtained through Messrs. Nanavati and Company aforesaid. One D. N. Patel, who was a former employee of Messrs. Nanavati and Company, joined a partnership business under the style of 'Messrs, Agri. Orient Industries Limited of Bombay'. This firm obtained a contract from the Government for the supply of twenty thousand tons of ammonium sulphate from United States of America, in February, 1950. In the course of this business deal, the said Patel experienced some difficulty in obtaining Government orders regarding some consignments. The appellant was approached in that connection, and it is alleged that Patel paid to the appellant Rs. 10,000 at Bombay as bribe for facilitating matters. But in spite of the alleged payment, difficulties and delays occurred and the consignments, even after they had reached their destination in India, were not moving fast enough, thus, causing considerable loss to the firm in which Patel was interested. Patel, therefore, approached Shri K. M. Munshi who was then the Minister for Food and Agriculture in Delhi, and disclosed to him the alleged payment of bribe of Rs. 10,000 as also the fact that the appellant had been receiving large sums of money by way of bribes for showing favours in the discharge of his duties in the Department. The Minister aforesaid directed thorough enquiries to be made, and the matter was placed in the hands of the Inspector-General of Special Police Establishment. A departmental committee was also set up of three senior officers of the Department to hold a departmental inquiry, and ultimately, as a result of that inquiry, the Minister passed orders of dismissal of the appellant, in August, 1950. A further inquiry in the nature of a quasi-judicial inquiry, was held by the late Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha of the Bombay High Court, in 1951. The inquiry related to matters concerned with the import of fertilizers into India. After receipt of the report of the inquiry by the late Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha, in January, 1952, and after the consideration of the matters disclosed in that report, a first information report was lodged on April 4, 1952, and through investigations were made into the complaints. The result was that two cases were instituted. The first one related to an alleged conspiracy involving the appellant, Krishnaswamy and one of the proprietors of Messrs. Nanavati and Company, and several others, relating to bribery and corruption in connection with the supplies of ammonium sulphate from Russia. With that case, we are not concerned here. The second case, out of the which the present appeal arose, was instituted against two persons, namely, the appellant and Krishnaswamy, that they had entered into a conspiracy to receive bribes and presents from various firms, in connection with the import of fertilizers. The learned Special Judge, who heard the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that it did not disclose any conspiracy as alleged, except in certain instances which formed the subject-matter of the charge of conspiracy which was being tried separately, as aforesaid. The present case, therefore, proceeded against the appellant alone under two heads of charge, namely, (1) that he had been habitually accepting or obtaining, for, himself or for others, illegal gratifications from a number of named firms and others, in connection with the import and distribution of fertilizers - S. 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and (2) that he had been habitually receiving presents of various kinds by abusing his position as a public servant - S. 5(1) (d) of the Act. The High Court, in agreement with the learned Special Judge, found the evidence of P. Ws. 9 and 10, who were the principal prosecution witnesses as regards the passing of certain sums of money from certain named firms to the appellant, as wholly unreliable. Furthermore, Patel, being in the position of an accomplice, his evidence did not find sufficient corroboration from other facts and circumstances proved in the case. The High Court, not being in a position to accept the tainted evidence aforesaid, found that the case of payment of particular sums of money by way of bribes, had not been established. But relying upon the presumption under subs-s. (3) of S. 5 of the Act, the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had not satisfactorily accounted for the receipt of Rs. 73,000 odd in cash and about Rs. 18,000 by cheques, during the years 1947 and 1948, which sums were wholly disproportionate to the appellant's known source of income, namely, his salary as a Government servant, and that, therefore, he was guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duties. In that view of the matter, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment, passed by the learned Special Judge of Delhi.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has contended (1) that on the admitted facts, the ingredients of S. 5(3) of the Act, had not bee established, (2) that when the charge in respect of specific instances of corruption, has not been proved, as found by the courts below, it should have been held that the contrary of the presumption contemplated by S. 5 (3), namely, of the guilt of criminal misconduct, had been established, and (3) that the appellant's statement under S. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also his statements contained in his written statement, had not been proved to be false, and that, therefore, it should have been held that the case against the appellant had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.