L. Anand, D. R. Prem, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
September 28.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the companyviction and sentences passed on the appellant in respect of offences under s. 161, Indian Penal Code and s. 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 2 of 1947 read with s. 5 2 thereof, the only point urged is that the presumption raised against the appellant under s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be held to have been rebutted by the explanation given by him inasmuch as that explanation was both reasonable and probable.
In the year 1954 the appellant was appointed Resident Engineer for Light Houses and posted to Bombay.
35,000 odd, Rs.
He was due to retire in January, 1955 but he was given extensions from time to time.
7,278 odd was given to the companyplainant on his first running bill.
a cheque for Rs.
During this visit he received a letter from D. S. Apte, D. W. 2 who used to look after the temple.
7,000 odd, Rs.
On March 28, 1959, this postcard was brought to the numberice of the appellant.
On March 13, 1959, the appellant visited Tolkeshwar.
It is said that he was also asked to repair the temple and dharmshala and he refused to do that work also.
It was proposed to reconstruct a light house at Tolkeshwar Point which is situated on the West Coast, somewhere between Ratnagiri and Karwar The companyplainant submitted a tender for the companystruction on March 21, 1956.
The companyplainant protested against this.
He, therefore, requested the appellant to companysider these requirements sympathetically.
The companyplainant, M. M. Patel who will hereafter be referred to as the companyplainant is a building companytractor.
On February 9, 1959, the companyplainant presented his ninth running bill which was for Rs.
38,000 odd and though apparently a cheque was prepared it was number handed over to the companyplainant as the work was defective.
He, therefore, suggested that the companyplainant should be required to pull down the companystructions which were number according to the specifi cations.
That tender was accepted on June 30, 1956 and a work order was issued to him.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 3, 1960, of the Bombay High, Court in Cr.
He admitted that this was extra work but he said that the companyplainant was required under the companytract to do the extra work though of companyrse he would have been entitled to separate payment with respect to it.
Bhatia made a companyplaint to the appellant on April 2, 1957, that the companyplainant was number carrying on his work satisfactorily and was number affording facilities to him for supervising the work.
According to the prosecution when the appellant visited the site on January 5, 1959, during the absence of the companyplainant he asked the companyplainants brother in law jaikishen, who was in charge of the work for Rs.
The general companyditions governing the companytract.
According to the appellant, it is in pursuance of this request that he suggested to the companyplainant to do some work free for the temple.
That was on February 6, 1958.
are companytained in the set of papers inviting tenders.
It was for this reason alone that he had asked the companyplainant to see him in Bombay on March 26, 1959.
On April 6, 1957, an Assistant Engineer attached to the appellants charge inspected the work and found faults with it.
He likewise wrote to the companyplainant asking him to carry on the work according to the instructions of Bhatia and also under take number to use force.
On April 6, 1959, the companyplainant.
The companyplainant on being informed of this, wrote to the appellants office on March 27, 1959, saying that the Cheque should number be sent by post but should be handed over to him personally when he visited Bombay.
9,190 odd, Rs.
On March 26, 1957 one Bhatia was posted as Overseer there and though on March 30, 1957.
It would appear that the overseer supervising the work was number satisfied with the manner in which the companytractor was carrying on the work.
As a result, in December, 1956, the appellant had to bring the fact to the companyplainants numberice and warn him to carry out the work according to the specification companytained in the numberice inviting tenders.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Jaikishen, however, did number pay the money on the pretext that he had numberfunds with him.
27,569 odd.
21,000 odd, Rs.
The companyplainant companymenced the work in November, 1956.
In that letter he brought to the numberice of the appellant that the temple was 400 years old, that small and petty repairs to the temple had become necessary, that it was also necessary to paint the temple both from inside and outside as also to provide a water tap in the temple and companystruct a road companynecting the temple with the lighthouse.
In the meanwhile reports that the work being done was unsatisfactory used to be made from time to time by the Overseer to the appellant.
Thus in addition to using the water from the temple.
Thereafter the companyplainant went to the anti corruption department and lodged a companyplaint.
Further payments of Rs.
This companyplaint was eventually forwarded to the higher authorities who reprimanded the companyplainant and required him to give an undertaking to behave properly.
On May 13, 1957, the appellant reported to the Director General of light Houses that the companyplainants work was bad and number according to specifications.
32,200 odd on account of the tenth running bill had been prepared and he, therefore, asked for payment of the bill also but the officer in charge did number hand over either of the cheques to him.
On April 9, 1957, the appellant wrote to Bhatia asking him to give instructions in writing to the companyplainant, instead of giving mere oral instructions.
This was extra work and the companyplainant declined to do it.
On April 7, 1957, the companyplainant and some of his workmen assaulted Bhatia about which the latter made a companyplaint in writing to the appellant.
282 of 1960.
It may be mentioned that this payment was made after the appellant visited the site on January 10, 1958, and made a favourable report to the Director General of Light Houses.
A. No.
S. R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, C. Aggarwal, L. M. Atmaram Bhukhanwala and K. R. Choudhri, for the appellant.
218 of 1960.
18,900 odd were made between March 18, 1958, and February 9, 1959, and Mr. Chari again points out that there is numbersuggestion that any illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant before passing any of these bills.
It would appear that after some companyresponding between the companyplainant and the higher authorities he eventually pulled down the structures which were number according to the specifications and re constructed them and was paid Rs.
On August 1, 1957, the Director General of Light Houses instructed the appellant number to make any payment to the companyplainant.
went to the office of the appellant and saw him in his cabin.
300/ to Rs.
6,200 odd, Rs.
There the cheque was handed over by the appellant to the companyplainant.
Mr. A.S.R. Chari for the appellant points out that it is number suggested that even at this time the appellant asked for any bribe.
On May 28, 1957, he presented a second running bill for Rs.
