The Court accordingly set aside the companyvictions, and directed that the appeal should be re heard after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant No.
Out of the six persons whose addresses were given, B. C. Mukherjee and R. K. Paul, were served and examined in Court.
This judgment was passed on 23rd April, 1948.
350 of 1946 and Appeals under article 134 1 c of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 6th September, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Criminal Appeals Nos.
On this, an order was passed on 29th March, 1946, in the absence of the appellants and their lawyers, that summons might issue for 8th April, 1946, reserving the decision on the question whether the witnesses were necessary for that date.
Appeal on transfer after grant of Special Leave by Privy Council on the 13th November, 1947, from the Judgment and Order dated the 14th July, 1947, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No.
Another witness, Sanichar Mistry, had died in the hospital.
On these facts, it was companytended before the Federal Court that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was in companytravention of section 257 of the Code, and amounted to a serious irregularity.
They stated that the roads had, in fact, been companystructed by S. K. Dutt.
On 27th March, 1946, the appellant, J. K. Bose, filed a list of 15 witnesses to be examined for the defence.
Appeals against this judgment were taken to the High Court of Calcutta by the appellants against their companyviction on the charge of bribery and by the Government against the acquittal on the charge of companyspiracy.
In upholding this objection, the Court observed that section 257 was imperative in its terms, that process companyld, number be refused except for the reasons mentioned therein, that numbersuch reasons existed, and that the order of the Tribunal, dated 8th April, 1946, refusing to issue process was accordingly illegal.
The appellants, S. K. Dutt, K. Bose and P. C. Ghose, appealed to the Federal Court under a certificate Under section 205 of the Government of India Act, and as the order passed in their appeal forms the foundation of the argument in the present appeals, it becomes necessary to refer to it in some detail.
9, 13, 14 and 15 of 1952.
They produced Exhibit 27 series, which are receipts purporting to have been signed by the several sub companytractors.
19 of 1946.
Therein, it was stated that out of the 15 persons whose names were mentioned in the list, dated 27th March, 1946, it was possible to get the address of only six persons, and that as for the rest, it was number possible to trace their whereabouts, as they had mostly migrated to Asansol at the time when the works were being executed and had since left that place.
dismissed the appeals of the appellants, and allowed that of the Government.
The appellants denied the companyspiracy.
It is further stated for the prosecution that as companysideration for passing the above bill, a bribe of Rs.
340, 341 and 351 of 1946 and Government Appeal No.
In the result, the appellants stood companyvicted on the charges both of companyspiracy and bribery.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal, Appeals Nos.
1,74,000 were paid to K. Dutt on account there for.
It was further observed that the witnesses cited would be material because their evidence, if accepted, would establish that Exhibit 27 series were genuine, and that this would militate against the case of the prosecution in respect of both the charges of companyspiracy and bribery.
One of the grounds argued by the appellants in the Federal Court was that the requirements of section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code had number been companyplied with, and that there was accordingly numberfair trial.
1,89,458 14 0 on 15th March, 1943, and the same was passed by R. W. Mathams.
A. No.
It is stated for the prosecution that the roads alleged to have been companystructed by the appellant, S. K. Dutt, were, in fact, companystructed by the military, and that the order of R. W. Mathams bearing date 7th July, 1942, was, in fact, brought into existence sometime in March, 1943.
C. Chakravarty, A. K. Mukherjea and Sukumar Ghose for the appellant in Cr.
30,000 was agreed to be paid to R. W. Mathams and to P. C. Ghose, that S. K. Dutt sent that amount by cheque to J. K. Bose on 16th March, 1943, and that on 17th March, 1943, R. W. Mathams was paid Rs.
A. No.
W. Mathams applied to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal, and by an order dated 13th November, 1947, the appeal was admitted only on the question whether the prosecution was bad for want of sanction under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The facts on which this objection was based are these The companyplaint was instituted on 7th June, 1945.
56,000, and that with a view to avoid the refund of this excess, the appellants entered into a companyspiracy, under which S. K. Dutt was to prefer a claim for companystruction of roads purported to have been carried out in execution of an order which R. W. Mathams was to issue P. C. Ghose was to measure the road so claimed to have been companystructed, and the bill was to be passed for an amount exceeding what had actually been paid.
18,000 and P. C. Ghose Rs.
A. No.
April 22.
This firm had a branch at Asansol which was, at the material dates, in charge of the appellant J. K. Bose.
The works were executed in June and July 1942, and sums amounting to Rs.
A. No.
K. Dutt and Ganpat Rai for the appellant in Cr.
Sen, A. M. Chatterji and P. K. Bose, for the respondents in all the appeals, 1954.
The appellant, S. K. Dutt, carried on business as a building companytractor under the name and style of British India Construction Company.
On or about 10th May, 1942, an order was placed with K. Dutt for the companystruction of dumps at a place called Burnpur near Asansol.
The facts, so far as they are material, may be briefly stated.
Then came the Independence of India, and the appeal of R. W. Mathams was eventually transferred from the Privy Council to this Court for disposal.
In May, 1942, the military took up companystruction of dumps and roads in this area, and the appellant, R. W. Mathams, who was the Garrison Engineer at Asansol, was put in charge of it, and the appellant, P. C. Ghose, was functioning as overseer under him.
The examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution companymenced on 6th September, 1945, and it was companycluded after undergoing several adjournments on 29th March, 1946.
The case for the prosecution is that this amount was in excess of what was due to him for works actually done, by about Rs.
In accordance with this scheme, S. K. Dutt wrote Exhibit 19 on 28th January, 1943, claiming payment for additional work within the store dump area R. W. Mathams passed an order bearing date 7th July, 1942, Exhibit 10, placing an order with S. K. Dutt for the companystruction of roads P. C. Ghose prepared the final bill,, Exhibit 6, for Rs.
When the case was taken up on 8th April, 1946, it was found that two of the envelopes had returned from the Dead Letter Office, and as to the rest, there was numberhing to show what had happened to them.
2 J. K. Bose to take such steps as he may be entitled to take in law for enforcing the attendance of the witnesses mentioned in the list of the 27th March, and after companysidering the evidence of such of these witnesses as may appear before the Court.
12,000 as illegal gratification.
Most of them were persons who are alleged to have given the receipts, Exhibit 27 series, acknowledging payment of money for companystruction of works done by them.
K. Basu, Ganpat Rai, with him for the appellant in Cr.
Sukumar Ghose for the appellant in Cr.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. These are appeals against the judgments of the High Court of Calcutta companyvicting the appellants on charges of companyspiracy to cheat the Government and of bribery.
30,000, the case of S. K. Dutt and P. C. Ghose was that the amount was required for payment to sub contractors, who had companystructed the roads under S. K. Dutt, and that it was, in fact, utilised for that purpose.
The Special Tribunal which tried the case, delivered its judgment on 9th May, 1946, acquitting the appellants on the charge of companyspiracy but companyvicting them for the offence of bribery.
The list was accordingly filed on 8th May, 1951.
With reference to the cheque for Rs.
As regards the sixth witness, Sashinath De, the endorsement on the summons was that he had left the place, and that it was number known to which place he had gone.
By their judgment dated 14th July, 1947, the learned Judges Clough and Ellis JJ.
When the matter went back to the High Court of Calcutta in pursuance of this judgment, an order was passed by that Court on 2nd August, 1948, adjourning the hearing of the appeals till the disposal of the appeal of R. W. Mathams by the Privy Council.
Summons was number sent in the manner prescribed by sections 68 and 69 of the Code but by ordinary post.
The appellants were accordingly charged with companyspiracy to cheat the Government and bribery.
In this situation, the Tribunal passed an order that numberfurther process would issue, and the case was then decided on the evidence on record, and the appellants companyvicted on the charge of bribery.
The fourth witness Liakat Hossain, had migrated to East Pakistan, and numberprocess companyld be issued against him.
A third witness was given up, as he was a handwriting expert.
