GOVIND BALVANT LAGHATE Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments in this appeal have occupied us for more than three days. But so far from thinking that any part of that time was wasted, I am of opinion that the Court is indebted to the learned Counsel on both sides for the assistance which they have afforded us by their able and thoroughgoing arguments. In a case of this importance it is a matter of much satisfaction to feel sure that no point which could possibly be urged in the appellant s favour has passed unnoticed.

(2.) The appellant is one Govind Balwant Laghate who, up to the time of his suspension in view of this prosecution, belonged to that excellent and deserving body of public servants, the Subordinate Judges. In that body he -held a distinguished position, being a Subordinate Judge of the first class and drawing a substantial salary of Rs. 800 a month-a salary which, unless his mode of life was very extravagant, must have been more than sufficient for his needs. He has now been convicted of being a corrupt Judge. In more technical language he has been convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code of receiving an illegal gratification, that is to say, a bribe in respect of the discharge of the duties of his office as Judge. According to the case for the Crown the bribe took the form of the gift of a horse, which was presented to the appellant as a bribe by the witness Narayandas Kanhayalal, whose adoptive sister Mirabai had at the material times an important suit pending in the appellant s Court. Amidst much controversy there is one point upon which both sides seem agreed, and it is convenient to notice it now. I mean the patient and careful trial which the appellant had in the Court of the learned Trying Magistrate, and the lucid and exhaustive judgment in which that Magistrate has discussed fully every point raised in argument and every material passage of the evidence on the record. In my opinion, if the merits of this case can be arrived at, and especially, if the evidence of Narayandas Kanhayalal can be fairly considered, this appeal is hopeless. Whether because that was recognized by the appellant and his legal advisers or for some other reason unknown to me, it is the fact that the defence largely, if not mainly, was based on preliminary points of technical objection. I call them technical, because their object, either confessedly or manifestly, was to stave off a consideration of the merits of the case. Speaking for myself, I should have thought that a Judge accused-and, as he asserts, falsely accused-of corruption would have welcomed an opportunity of meeting that accusation on its merits in a criminal Court, where the onus of proof was entirely on his accusers. That, however, is not the course which this appellant has elected to adopt. The course which he has adopted is a course perfectly open to him. But I will say candidly for myself that unless forced by law to a different view, I should be slow to allow in such a case as this any technical objection to stand between this Court and the decision of the important question whether this appellant has or has not been proved to be corrupt.

(3.) Now there were many points of technical objection raised in the Court of the learned Magistrate. Most of them have been abandoned, and I think wisely abandoned, in this Court. There remain, however, two which, since they were pressed by Mr. Velinkar, must be considered and decided by us.