1. Conspiracy to cheat government and bribery involving overbilling for construction works — denial of opportunity to examine material defense witnesses under Section 257, CrPC. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1954 Supreme(SC) 76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mehr Chand Mahajan, CJI., S.R. Das, N.H. Bhagwati, B. Jagannadhadas, T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar, JJ.
Ronald Wood Mathams and others – Appellant
Versus
State of W.B. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 9, 13, 14, and 15 of 1952
Decided On : 22-04-1954
Advocates appeared
Messrs, N. C. Chakravarty, A. K. Mukherjea and Sukumar Ghose, Advocate (in No. 9); Mr. A. K. Basu, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Ganpat Rai, Advocate, with him), (in No. 13); Messrs. A. K. Dutt and Ganpat Rai, Advocates (in No. 14) and Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocate, (in No. 15), for Appellants; Messrs, B. Sen, A. M. Chatterji and P. K. Bose, Advocates, for the State of West Bengal (in all the Appeals).
Messrs, N. C. Chakravarty, A. K. Mukherjea and Sukumar Ghose, Advocate (in No. 9); Mr. A. K. Basu, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Ganpat Rai, Advocate, with him), (in No. 13); Messrs. A. K. Dutt and Ganpat Rai, Advocates (in No. 14) and Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocate, (in No. 15), for Appellants; Messrs, B. Sen, A. M. Chatterji and P. K. Bose, Advocates, for the State of West Bengal (in all the Appeals).
A conviction is unsustainable if the accused is denied a fair trial due to the court's failure to follow mandatory procedural rules regarding the examination of material witnesses, especially when such failure is caused by the court's own errors or delays.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 257 - Examination of witnesses - Refusal to issue process for witnesses cited by the accused is a serious irregularity and contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Code - Such refusal, if it deprives the accused of an opportunity to rebut the prosecution's case, amounts to a denial of a fair trial. (Paras 5, 6, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 197 - Sanction for prosecution - Sanction is not required for instituting proceedings on charges of conspiracy and bribery. (Para 11)
(C) Fair Trial - Where the inability to produce material witnesses is a result of the court's own erroneous orders and subsequent delays, the accused cannot be penalized, and the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
A building contractor and government officials were charged with conspiracy to cheat the government and bribery. It was alleged that fake claims for road construction were made to avoid refunding excess payments. The defense claimed the roads were actually constructed and produced a list of sub-contractors as witnesses. The trial court initially refused to issue summons for these witnesses. Following a remand for a re-hearing, significant delays and geopolitical changes made most of these witnesses untraceable. The accused were subsequently convicted.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the initial refusal to issue process for witnesses was illegal. The subsequent inability to examine these witnesses was not the fault of the accused but resulted from the trial court's error and the High Court's delay in hearing the remand. Since the witnesses were material for rebutting the charges, their absence resulted in a lack of a fair trial.
Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained when the accused were deprived of a reasonable opportunity to examine material witnesses due to procedural errors and delays by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: Rules of procedure designed to ensure justice must be scrupulously followed. A conviction cannot stand if the accused is denied the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the prosecution's case, especially when such denial is caused by the court's own procedural lapses.
Result: Appeals allowed, and the appellants acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Convictions are unsustainable as the trial was vitiated by the denial of a reasonable opportunity to examine material witnesses. (Para 8 )
3. Unavailability of witnesses due to war, partition, and judicial delay, following an illegal refusal to issue process, deprived the accused of a fair trial. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Conviction cannot stand if the accused is denied a reasonable opportunity to present material evidence, as it constitutes a breach of fair trial procedures. (Para 10 )
5. Appeals allowed and appellants acquitted. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. What is the effect of illegally refusing to issue process for defense witnesses under Section 257 CrPC?
Refusing to issue process for material witnesses without valid reasons under Section 257 CrPC is illegal. If this deprivation prevents the accused from rebutting the prosecution's case, it vitiates the trial and renders the conviction unsustainable. (Para 6 , 10 )
7. Does a strong prosecution case justify denying the defense the right to examine its witnesses?
No. Regardless of the strength of the prosecution's evidence, the accused is entitled to rebut it. Denying the opportunity to present evidence constitutes a denial of a fair trial, and the conviction cannot stand. (Para 10 )
8. How do judicial delays and external upheavals affect the right to a fair trial regarding witness availability?
When witnesses become unavailable due to circumstances beyond the accused's control—such as war, partition, or judicial delays—the accused cannot be blamed. If this prevents the presentation of material evidence, it results in a failure of justice. (Para 8 , 9 )
9. Is sanction under Section 197 CrPC required for charges of conspiracy and bribery against public officials?
No, sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not necessary for instituting proceedings on charges of conspiracy and bribery. (Para 11 )
Judgment
VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J.:
These are appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta convicting the appellants on charges of conspiracy to cheat the Government and of bribery. The facts so far as they are material, may be briefly states. The appellant, S. K. Dutt, carried on business as a building contractor under the name and style of British India Construction Company. This firm had a branch at Asansol which was, at the material dates, in charge of the appellant, J. K. Bose. In May 1942, the military took up construction 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.
On or about 10th May 1942, an order was placed with S. K. Dutt for the construction of Dumps at a place called Burnpur near Asansol. The works were executed in June and July 1942, and sums amounting to Rs. 1,74,000 were paid to S. K. Dutt on account therefor. The case for the prosecution is that this amount was due to him for works actually done, by about Rs. 56,000 and that with a view to avoid the refund of this excess, the appellants entered into a conspiracy, under which S. K. Dutt was to prefer a claim for construction 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 constructed, and the bill was to be passed for an amount exceeding what had actually been paid.
In accordance with this scheme S. K. Dutt wrote Exhibit 19 on 26-1-1943 claiming payment for "additional work within the store dump area"; R. W. Mathams passed an order bearing date 7-7-1942 (Exhibit 10), placing an order with S. K. Dutt for the construction of roads; P. C. Ghose prepared the final bill, Exhibit 6, for Rs. 1,89,458-14-0 on 15-3-1943, and the same was passed by R. W. Mathams. It is stated for the prosecution that the road alleged to have been constructed by the appellant, S. K. Dutt, were, in fact, constructed by the military, and that the order of R. W. Mathams bearing date 7-7-1942 was in fact, brought into existence sometime in March 1943. It is further stated for the prosecution that as consideration for passing the above bill, a bribe of Rs. 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 16-3-1943, and that on 17-3-1943 R. W. Mathams was paid Rs. 18,000 and P. C. Ghose, Rs. 12,000 as illegal gratification.
The appellants were accordingly charged with conspiracy to cheat the Government and bribery.
2. The appellants denied the conspiracy. They states that the roads had, in fact, been constructed by S. K. Dutt. With reference to the cheque for Rs. 3,000 the case of S. K. Dutt and P. C. Ghose was that the amount was required for payment to sub-contractors, who had constructed the roads under S. K. Dutt, and that it was, in fact utilised for that purpose. They produced Exhibit 27 series, which are receipts purporting to have been signed by the several sub-contractors.
3. The Special Tribunal which tried the case, delivered its judgment on 9-5-1946 acquitting the appellants on the charge of conspiracy but convicting them for the offence of bribery. Appeals against this judgment were taken to the High Court of Calcutta, by the appellants against their conviction on the charge of bribery and by the Government against the acquittal on the charge of conspiracy. By their judgment dated 14-7-1947 the learned Judges (Cough and Ellis, JJ.) dismissed the appeals of the appellants, and allowed that of the Government. In the result, the appellants stood convicted on the charges both of conspiracy and bribery.
4. R. W. Mathams applied to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal, and by an order dated 13-11-1947 the appeal was admitted only on the question whether the prosecution was bad for want of sanction under section 197 of the Crimina
