T A BASHEERUDDIN AHMED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by the 1st and 2nd accused respectively against their convictions in Bangalore Sessions Case No. 6 of 1950-51. Accused 1 was charged with committing offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948, for having received on the night of 13th October 1948 from one Sanjivappa Rs. 400/- as illegal gratification in order to show favour to him in four cases pending before him (1st Accused) as House Rent Controller. The 2nd accused was charged with the abetment of the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty and sentenced Accused 1 to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the said offences with a direction that the sentences do run concurrently. As regards the 2nd accused he ordered under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal procedure that he should be released on bail on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- with one surety for a like sum to appear and receive sentence when called upon within a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

(2.) Accused 2 is the son of the 1st accused aged about 15 years and a student in the High School. He is living with the 1st accused and said to have been in contract with some of the persons whose cases are pending before the 1st accused. The 1st accused is a Senior Assistant Commissioner in the service of the Government of Mysore and was appointed as House Rent Controller in Bangalore City in about the year 1947. One B.H. Sanjivappa who is a contractor and owns some houses in Bangalore City applied to the 1st accused for eviction of his tenants and enhancement of rent payable by the tenants in some cases. One of these cases was filed in 1948. In the month of September 1943 the said Sanjivappa who is examined as P.W. 14 complained to the Deputy Commissioner, P.W. 15, about the delay on the part of the 1st accused in disposing of his cases and that the 1st accused was said to be in the habit of receiving bribes from parties. P.W. 15 sent him away saying that unless a case is made out no action can be taken. Subsequently on one of the dates to which the petition of P.W. 14 was posted, he saw the 2nd accused moving about at the office of the 1st accused and on being told by some of the parties in other cases then present that the 2nd accused would be of help to obtain favourable results in the cases spoke to him about his own affair. The meeting between P.W. 14 and the 2nd accused was renewed and finally led to an understanding on 12th September 1948 that P.W. 14 should pay Rs. 500/- to the 1st accused at his house as consideration for disposal of his cases in the manner favourable to him. P.W. 14 communicated this to P.W. 15 and the night of 13th October 1948 was fixed by P.W. 14 with the 2nd accused for payment of the prescribed amount to the 1st accused. Meanwhile the Director of the Efficiency Audit and Anti Corruption Department was apprised of this arrangement and with the assistance of the police officers and the officers of his Department, Rs. 400/- provided by him in the form of forty ten rupee currency notes were taken to a Magistrate, got marked by him, given to P.W. 14, the officers themselves lying in wait near the house of the 1st accused. P.W. 14 in pursuance of the engagement went to the house of the 1st accused at 8-30 p.m. but returned without paying the money as the 1st accused was absent and said to have gone to attend a picture. At the second visit about an hour later P.W. 14 met the 1st accused in his house and paid him Rs. 400/- promising to give the balance of Rs. 100/- later on. The payment was announced by a signal of waving the umbrella after he came out and immediately an Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Department got in and kept the 1st accused engaged in a talk so that the amount may not be removed by the 1st accused before the arrival of the officers. P.W. 15 dropped in within a few minutes with others and questioned the 1st accused if he had received from P.W. 14 any money. The 1st accused denied the payment at first but on being confronted with P.W. 14 admitted it, looked at the 2nd accused who hereupon took out the notes from his shirt pocket and handed them over. A mahazar was prepared for the seizure of the amount, two registers and a note book at the time and after the investigation proceedings were completed and sanction was obtained from the Government, a charge-sheet was presented in the Court of the City Magistrate, Bangalore. This in brief is the case for the prosecution.

(3.) Though 18 witnesses in all were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the accused in the committing Court and in the Court of Sessions, the evidence of many of the prosecution witnesses is not now material in view of the accused having in their statements admitted some of the facts sought to be proved by it. The accused admit that P. W. 14 visited them on the 13th October 1948, that ho left Rs. 400/- then in the house of the accused, that of the books then seized two were got prepared by the 1st accused by his clerks and one contains the writing of the 2nd accused. These facts were not disputed during the arguments and so there is no need to discuss the evidence of P.W. 1, the Magistrate, who marked the currency notes, P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 three clerks of the 1st accused who copied the registers, Exhibits 17 and 18, P.W. 4 the teacher who identified the writing of the 2nd accused in the book, Exhibit P. 22 and P.W. 9 the Handwriting Expert who speaks to the writing in Exhibit P. 22 being that of the 2nd accused. P.Ws. 2 and 18 are the officers of the Secretariat examined for the purpose of proving the sanction of Government for the prosecution of the accused. P.Ws. 12 & 13 are witnesses to the mahazar Exhibit P. 24. P.W. 16 is the Director of the Anti- Corruption Department and P. Ws. 10 and 11 are the Daffedar and the Assistant Superintendent of Police respectively working under him. P.W. 8 is the Police Inspector who kept the 1st accused engaged in conversation in the interval between P.W. 14 coming out of the house of the 1st accused and the arrival of the other officers and P.W. 17 is the Superintendent of Police who investigated the case. P.W. 15 is the Deputy Commissioner who reported the Incident to the Government and on whose report sanction was accorded and P.W. 14 is the person who has given direct evidence of the payment and matters connected with it. The main plea of the accused is that the money was not accepted by the 1st accused and that P.W. 14 left it and went away abruptly, that the 1st accused immediately asked his son to take it out for being returned to P.W. 14 and in case he was not found, deliver it to the Police. It is also stated that while the 2nd accused had gone out in quest of P.W. 14 with the money, he was detained by the police officers waiting outside and brought back inside the house. The prosecution is alleged to be the outcome of ill-will on the part of P.W. 15 on account of differences between him and the 1st accused as regards the authority of the 1st accused to function as the Rent Controller independently of P.W. 15. The learned Sessions Judge found that these pleas are not tenable and that the evidence let in by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt.