EMPEROR Vs. BHIMRAO NARSIMHA HUBLIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was charged before the Additional Sessions Judge at Sholapur with having accepted from one Shri Kisan Sarda cloth to the value of Rs. 95-7-6 as a motive for showing favour to the said Sarda in Suit No. 570 of 1922 on his file, the accused at that time holding the appointment of joint Subordinate Judge at Sholapur and thus having committed an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Indian Penal Code, The Judge disagreeing with the assessors found him guilty and sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of 1,000,

(2.) The accused has appealed.

(3.) Sarda, a wealthy merchant of Sholapur, owned a house which he has leased to the Municipality to be used as a school building. In April 1922 he was told that if he would open windows on the ground-floor and add a second storey he would he paid an increased rent. With the consent of the Municipality he commenced the alterations and additions. His neighbours on either side objected. One of them, Tandulwadikar, Emperor filed suit No. 570 of 1922 on the Subordinate judges Court on June 1 and obtained next day an interim injunction parte. The notice of the injunction was served on Sarda on June 9. Exhibit 2B is the Roznama of that suit. Sarda put in a written statement and the suit was adjourned for production of documentary evidence. On the 29 the Judge appointed the following day a Sunday for an inspection of the premises. It may be necessary to mention, though it is not of much importance, that the owner of the premises on the other side of Sarda's building also tiled a suit against him, and in July 1922 Sarda himself had three or four suits pending in the Court of the accused. On the 29th, Sarda and his pleader Phadke went in Sarda's carriage to drive the Judge to the premises. After viewing some other premises the Judge came to Sarda's building. Mehendale, the plaintiff's pleader, joined the party at the first premises. Sarda alleges that accused said to him in Canarese You have built this unjustly. I shall have it demolished, In the Magistrate's Court Sarda said that accused told him he would have to buy plaintiff's land. When the inspection was finished the Judge went to Phadke's house for tea. Sarda alleges that after tea the accused said to Phadke in Marathi Speak to your client and get him to buy the land From Phadke's house the Judge went on with Sarda and Mehendale to the latter's house where he got out. Sarda then deposed as follows : "When we started accused asked me in Marathi whether I knew of a good cloth-shop. 1 said there were two or three good cloth shops, and mentioned Shingi's Ganeshram's and Nikte s. He asked me to drive to Shingi s. He then said You have built the wall unjustly and I shall have to have it pulled down. I said It is in your hands, do as you wish. He said Nothing comes out of merely lending a carriage. Recognise that fact and I shall have your business done/ I suspected that he was asking for a bribe He meant that the loan of a carriage was not enough, I had been often lending him my carriage." The account given of this conversation by Sarda in the Magistrate's Court was practically for the same effect, though he did not mention that the Judge said "I shall have your business done I Sarda said "Accused said to me youhave illegally opened windows, I will have to order them to be blocked up/ I said It is in your hands, do what you like/ Accused replied Nothing cornea of lending a horse and carriage for drives, you think this over." As to what happened at Shingi's shop have very little doubt that the prosecution evidence correctly describes it. Shingi showed some cloth to the accused and he chose various pieces asking Shingi to debit the price to Sarda a account. Shingi looked at Sarda who said "enter it." Samsuddin, a servant in the shop, made an entry. Accused had said do not enter my Gujarat, enter Sarda's Haste." The cloth was then packed up and placed in the carriage. Sarda says that after they had left the shop accused went back again into the shop for two or three minutes but whether he did or did not go back is not very material. The accused was evidently anxious that the cloth should not be debited to himself Sarda then drove the accused back to his bungalow where he got out with the parcel of cloth.