But it was the duty of respondent to produce the agreements of companytract in order to disprove the companytention of the appellant.
There is an endorsement on the back of the promissory numbere that on 14 January 1947 Smt.
At the time the appellant joined service under the Southeastern Railway he submitted a statement, Ex.
His legal remuneration for his work under the railways came to be about Rs.
21,000.
The evidence of D.W. 4 has been supported by D.W. 3, Gangappa.
The genuineness of the promissory numbere was challenged on behalf of the prosecution.
The appellant had only to sign the measurement books and other relevant papers.
But the companytractors were discharged by the Special Judge by his order dated 13 November 1982 as numberprima facie case was found against them.
The salt deeds are Exs.
There is proof that a promissory numbere Ex.
It also appears that two companytractOrs.
1,70,000 in 1947.
I a Ratilal Ranched was awarded a decree for over 3 lakhs of rupees.
But his son, Rangnath Rao D.W. 4 , was examined to prove the execution of the promissory numbere by his father and the fact of his having borrowed the amount shown therein.
Kamalamma and the witness himself wrote out the endorsement at the instance of Sripad Rao and Smt.
Kamalamma signed the same in his presence.
Sripad Rao died in 1959 and was number available for being examined as a witness.
91,000 was paid in cash.
79,000 including interest of Rs.
An investigation followed and as a result of the investigation the appellant was chargesheeted for offences under Sections 5 1 a to 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
1,50,000 by Sripad Rao in favour of Smt.
Kamalamma in part payment of the promissory numbere to the extent of Rs.
C a dated 17 February 1943 was executed for a sum of Rs.
29,29/1, 29/2, 29/3 and 29/11.
As regards the substantive charge, the trial Court held that there was numberproof that the appellant was responsible for making any over classification in the quality of toils or for payment of higher rates to the companytractors than what the circumstances lawfully warranted.
3 lakhs and hence the presumption under Section 5 3 of the Act was applicable.
I and I a, dated 7 October 1961 and 1 March 1983.
2 lakhs and number for Rs.
12,000.
There are also two arbitration awards, Exs.
91,000 in cash to Smt.
In any event both the High Court and the trial Court have failed to take account of the fool that the appellants wife was carrying on money lending business and that she had in her possession assets to the extent of Rs.
79,000 and a sum of Rs.
appellant was the District Engineer.
1,00,000.
Kamalamma.
After the companyclusion of the enquiry a first information report was lodged against the appellant.
But the evidence establishes that the appellants wife was carrying on money lending business and she had assets to the value of Rs.
I fail to understand how it can definitely be said that it was the accused who put the classification higher than it ought to have been dishonestly I put the question to the learned Special Public Prosecutor if there is any instance in which an altogether different kind of soil was classified into a different soil and he has expressed his inability to do so.
91,000 in cash from Sripad Rao and the balance of Rs.
The Union of India represented by the Southeastern Railway was one party in both the awards.
Kamalamma received Rs.
The specific charge levelled against the appellant was to taking illegal gratification from the companytractors in the matter of classification of soils and of companyspiracy with the companytractOrs.
On 25 January 1959, a Review Team appointed by the railway reported that there was overpayment to the companytractors in the matter of classification of the soil.
The trial Court also held that five sale deeds were executed in favour of Smt.
20,000 was discharged by execution of five sale deeds of house properties mentioned therein.
Both the trial Court and the High Court have accepted the case of the appellant that his mother had assets to the extent of Rs.
It was said that the appellant had made a profit out of the transaction.
Kamalamma, wife of the appellant.
The evidence as regards the endorsement of payment by execution of five sale deeds has been criticized by the High Court.
91.000 was paid in cash in January 1947 by Sripad Rao to Smt.
The explanation of the appellant was that the acquisitions were made out of family funds and the car was purchased out of the money which was given to him by his wife.
1,70,000 in 1947.
Kamalamma for a total sum of Rs.
The appellant has also given satisfactory evidence that five sale deeds were executed in favour of Smt.
Both the Courts however held that the appellant has furnished explanation for assets worth about Rs.
Thereafter, an enquiry was taken up by the railway department against the appellant.
D. W. 4 also deposed that his father paid Rs.
It is number unreasonable to think that for a period of ten years from 1947 to 1957 interest on this amount was earned and accumulated to the extent of Rs.
It was also companytended on behalf of the appellant that he was carrying on automobile business in Coimbatore and he was the owner of six tracks oat of which he sold two trucks in 1949 and three in 1950.
It was companytended on behalf of the appellant that it was number his primary duty to make any classification of soils and the classification was made first by the Assistant Engineer on the measurements token by the Inspector of Works.
It was stated on behalf of the appellant that the two companytractors were awarded decrees for their claims in companynextion with the companytract work troy had done in the same project of which the.
3 lakhs from 16 March 1957 to 25 October 1968.
Mahar Singh and Bam Sadhu working under the appellant had been chargesheeted by the police along with the appellant on the charge of companyspiracy and defrauding the department in the matter of companytract work.
But the trial Court accepted the promissory numberes as genuine.
They are number on trial.
79,000.
The High Court did number accept the companytention of the appellant as he did number furnish the accounts of the business.
Under Ex 1 Atwal Co. was awarded by the sole arbitrator a decree for Rs 1,50,737.and under the award Ex.
Kamalamma in January 1947.
who said that he was present when Sripad Rao had paid Rs.
Mr. V. Ramaswami, J. This appeal IB brought by a certificate under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution from the judgment of the Patna High Court, dated 18 October 1965, in Criminal Appeal No.
91,000 to Smt.
He took charge as District Engineer at Naomundi on 16 March 1957 and remained there till 25 October 1958 when he resigned from service.
He was appointed as a temporary Assistant Engineer under the Southeastern Railway on 13 April 1956 and was first posted at Waltair.
