Judgment

FAZL ALI, J.:- Corruption and nepotism is so rampant in our society of today, and more particularly in the services, that the Indian Penal Code was not considered sufficient to meet this menace, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947(Act II of 1947) -hereinafter referred to as the Act- had to be enacted and amended from time to time to stamp out this evil. This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment passed by the Special Judge, Bombay.

2. The facts of the present case are more or less undisputed and are the least complicated and, therefore, they fall within a very narrow compass, and by and large we have to examine whether or not the inferences drawn by the High Court from the proved facts are legally correct and lead to only one hypothesis, namely, that the accused is guilty.

3. It may be necessary to give a resume of the prosecution case before indicating the evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the courts below in convicting the appellant. The appellant was a senior officer in the Army, holding the rank of a Major, and was at the material time the Local Purchase Officer, hereinafter to be referred to as LPO, at Ordnance Depot at Talegaon Dabhade, District Poona. Following the Chinese attack in 1962 an Emergency was declared and the Army required certain engineering tools to be supplied immediately. The Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur, sent a requisition of engineering tools to the Ordnance Depot at Talegaon Dabhade, Poona. In this connection the Control Officer of the Ordnance Depot wrote a letter to the Group Officer requesting him to despatch the stores immediately. The Group Officer consequently wrote a letter to the appellant who was the LPO at the relevant time to arrange the supply of stores immediately. The appellant was directed to purchase the stores locally and to deliver them to the Group Officer. The Group Officer also indicated in his letter that the stores requisitioned by him were not available at the Depot at Talegaon. The detailed list of the tools, which is at Ext. 9, was received by the appellant on March 27, 1963. On the same day the Chief Ordnance Officer passed an order enabling the LPO to immediately purchase the tools on cash purchase basis.

4. We might pause for a little while in order to explain the nature of the order passed by the Chief Ordnance Officer. It appears that the normal procedure in the Department was that the LPO had to draw cash and then go to the market and purchase the goods against cash. But in view of the Emergency and the immediate necessity of the tools this procedure was waived and the appellant was permitted to buy the tools on covering purchase order basis; in other words, the appellant could himself purchase the tools without obtaining the previous sanction of the Chief Ordnance Officer, and on receiving the bills from the supplier and processing by same could get them sanctioned by the Chief Ordnance Officer and then make the payment to the supplier. According to the prosecution the appellant a day after he received the list Ex. 9, placed orders with Jayantilal Himatlal Shah P.W. 2, for supply of the tools. It is not disputed that P.W. 2 was one of the contractors on the approved list of theDepartment, and still continues to be so. P.W. 2 further assured the appellant that he would make the supply as early as possible, and that he would do so at moderate rates. P.W. 2 accordingly procured the articles from Bombay and delivered the same in the Depot by April 6,1963 along with his bills after which the bills were placed before the Chief Ordnance Officer and after sanction by him the payment was made to P.W. 2. Apart from engineering tools there was another requisition for the supply of 900 dessert spoons. The appellant first wanted to place this order also with P.W.