T A BASHIRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India for the issue of a certificate by this Court that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2.) The petitioner, T.A. Bashiruddin Ahmed, was convicted of offences under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948, and his son the second accused in the case was convicted of abetting the said offences. On appeal, the convictions of both the persons under both the Sections have been confirmed but the sentence in the case of the first accused is reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment for each offence, sentences being ordered to run concurrently. However, the sentence of fine with respect to the offence under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is set aside but with respect to the offence under Section 161 I.P.C., is confirmed.

(3.) The petitioner was the Rent Controller, an officer of the grade of an Assistant Commissioner, and the case against him was that he received Rs. 400/- as illegal gratification in order to show favour in four cases pending before him. According to the prosecution case, he did so with the assistance of his son, the second accused. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the case mainly depends upon the evidence of the person who actually offered the bribe and as such it should not be lightly accepted. There could be no doubt about this aspect of the matter and in the course of the judgment it has been observed that the accused are entitled to ask in a case of this kind that the evidence should be scrutinized with care and accepted with caution. The evidence of the witness has been accepted only as it is corroborated on material particulars. A good number of other circumstances have been relied on as circumstantial evidence corroborating the evidence of the person offering the bribe that money was offered and received as bribe. The statement of the accused is elaborate and it did not necessitate any further questioning of the accused on any material aspect of the case than what has been done.