SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(SC) 329

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
Major Som Nath, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1969, D/- 25-5-1971.
Advocates appeared
M/s Frank Anthony and K. B. Rohatgi Advocates for Appellant; M/s H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
FRANK ANTHONY, H.R.KHANNA, K.B.ROHTAGI, R.N.SACH

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 - Section 5(1) (c ) – Demand of bribe – Conviction - Criminal misconduct - Accused who is a Garrison Engineer Sirsa Air Field subsequently permitted the removal of the standing crop after accepting illegal gratification - Whether these facts were sufficient to sustain the sanction under S. 5 (1) (c) even if the charge under S. 5 (1) (d) had failed – Held, When the witnesses are contradicted by their previous statements in the manner aforesaid then that part of the statements which has been put to the witness will be considered along with the evidence to assess the worth of the witness in determining his veracity. The whole of the previous statement however cannot treated as substantive evidence -Appellant who was in charge of the expansion work on the airstrip was given possession of the land acquired for that purpose on 13-2-63, that there was standing thereon a bumper crop of Sarson, gram and Lusan on that day, that he was therefore entrusted with this crop, that he postponed giving delivery of the land to the contractor till, at any rate after the 23rd March, 1963 and before the 6th April 1963 and that he allowed the crop to be cut and taken away without in any way accounting for it which shows that it was done dishonestly and fraudulently. The fact that notwithstanding overwhelming evidence particularly of his own admission at the time he denies that there were ever any crops when delivery of possession of the land acquired was taken by him, further reinforces the conclusion that he allowed the crops to be cut away with dishonest or fraudulent motive. We do not think in these circumstances there is any justification whatever for interfering with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the Appellant is guilty of an offence under Section 5 (1) (c) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Appeal dismissed

Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:- This Appeal is by Special leave against the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 5(1) (c ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 as also the sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge of one year s Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default six month s Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. That facts of the case in brief are that in view of the Chinese Invasion Air Field at Sirsa required to be extended for which purpose the Ministry of Defence, Government of India took steps to acquire some lands of agriculturists pursuant to which a Notification dated November 27, 1962 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for acquiring 51.79 acres of land situated in the State of Ahmedpur. On the next day another Notification was issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on November 28, 1962 and in view of the emergency action under Section 17 was taken for obtaining possession of the land with a view to its development. The lands which were acquired belonged to several land holders including Moti Ram and P. W. 12 Kewal Chand. The Collector gave his award on 26-2-63 (Ex. P 26) in respect of these lands which actually measured 49.47 acres, at Rs. 1350/- per acre amounting to Rs. 66784.50p. Apart from this amount compensation was also awarded for standing crop amounting to Rs. 11073.13 P.

3. Before the land was actually acquired the Appellant who was a Major in the Military Engineering Service was working as a Garrison Engineer and was incharge of the extension. He had in anticipation of acquisition and execution of the work appointed A. B. Ranadive, P. W. 14 as Assistant Garrison Engineer who was to be responsible for all the matters connected with the acquisition of land, demarcation of boundaries as an Engineer Incharge for execution of the contract and responsible for the maintenance of the Air Field. The work of the extension of Aerodrome was entrusted to one Telu Ram, P. W. 8 Contractor, with whom the M. E. S. Department entered into an agreement on December 3, 1962. This agreement was signed both by the Appellant and P, W. 14. The work according to that agreement was to be done in 2 phases: first phase was to commence on 10th January 1963 and was to be completed by 9th October, 1963. After the completion of the first phase the second phase was to start on 10th October, 1963 and completed by 9th May 1964. Pursuant to this agreement it is said that symbolic possession of the land which was acquired was taken over by the Tehsildar on 1st February, 1963, after which at any rate it appears from Ex. P. 24 that actual possession of this land was handed over by the said Tehsildar on 13th February 1963 to the Appellant. The receipt Ex. P. 24 bears the signature of N. L. Handa, the Tehsildar and of Sukhchain Lal Jain P. W. 11 on behalf of the Military Estate Officer and the Appellant. From this receipt it is evident that possession of 50.12 acres was handed over by the Tehsildar and taken over by the Appellant and the Military Estate Officer Sukhchain Lal Jain.

4. The case of the prosecution initially was that after the land so acquired with the standing crop was taken possession of by the Appellant he sold the crop to Moti Ram and Kewal Chand for Rs. 2500/- and facilitated the cutting and taking away of the crop by postponing the handing over of the possession to the contractor till the 5th April 1963 and misappropitiated the money. In respect of this allegation the First Information Report (Ex. P. 29) was issued on 14-1-64 in which the following statement is relevant:

"It is alleged that Major Som Nath accused who is a Garrison Engineer Sirsa Air Field subsequently sometime in the months of March and April 1963 permitted the removal of the standing crop valued at Rs. 11073.13 by Shri Moti Ram and Kewal Chand etc, after accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 3000/- from them. Major Som Nath did not account for this
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top