EMPEROR Vs. AMIRUDDIN SALEBHOY TYABJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was charged before the Acting Chief Presidency Magistrate that he on or about the 14 day of October 1921 at Bombay abetted the commission by H.B. Clayton, Esquire, Municipal Commissioner of Bombay, a public servant, of an offence of taking gratification as the said public servant other than legal remuneration as a motive for doing a future official act, viz., giving contracts, punishable with imprisonment under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, which said offence was not committed in consequence of the said abetment and thereby committed an offence punishable under as, 116 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The accused was acquitted and Government have appealed.

(3.) The facts are shortly as follows:-A cousin of the accused, one Ebrahim Mahomedally, had submitted plans to the Municipality, for a building on the Queen 's Road, to which objections were raised. On the 21 September, accused called on Mr. Clayton and handed him a memorandum in respect of the objections. The Commissioner sent the memo to the Executive Engineer for report and on his report the objections were eventually withdrawn. On the 21 September, the accused, had spoken to the Commissioner about a tender he had made for the supply of sleepers in reply to an advertisement of the Municipality, and asked the Commissioner whether the result of the tenders was known. As a matter of fact a tender was sent by the accused's firm over his signature on the 22nd September. On the 8 October, a notice was sent to Ebrahim that the objections B and C to the construction of his building had been waived by the Commissioner and he was asked to inform the accused of that fact. On the 12 October, the accused wrote to the Commissioner thanking him for waiving the objections and asking him to dine at the Willingdon Sports Club on any day that might suit him. On the 14th October, before the reply which was endorsed on the letter of invitation could be sent the accused came to see the Commissioner. I give the Commissioner's account of the conversation which then took place : The accused thanked me far the concession I had made in respect of his cousin's building. He then referred to the tender he had put in for the sleepers. I told him that the contract was not disposed of and that I had nab seen the papers. He then said I think that the Municipality is asking for tender for 5000 tons cement or words to that effect. He asked me whether it was any good to put in a tender for the same. I told him that 1 would be glad if he would put in a tender because I wanted to have as many tenders as possible and he remarked that it was no good putting in a tender unless he had influence. I remember the word influence , but I am not certain whether be said unless one had influence or unless I had influence. 1 told him that the tenderer who put in a tender for cement as per British specification and at the cheapest price would probably get the contract. I expected the accused to leave me at this stage and I asked whether he had anything else to say and the accused said when shall I see you again. I told him there was no necessity for him to see me again. He said shall I see you here or elsewhere. I said what about . He said about that Rs. 5000 . I said what Rs. 5000 . He replied my cousin wishes to give you Rs. 5000 . I began to get suspicious about the accused's intention since he had mentioned the word influence .