AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramaswami, J.—This is an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C. A. No. 69
of 1951, reversing the conviction and sentence of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S. C. No. 55 of 1951.
The facts are : The respondent G. Sadagopan was the Head Clerk of the District Engineer''s Office, Podanoor, south Indian Railway, On
information received that this Sadagopan was a bribe-taker, investigation was started by the Special Police Establishment, Madras. It is enough for
the purpose of this case that this Special police Establishment, Madras, unearthed 3 instances against him, viz., that he accepted on 1-5-1950 at
Podanur Rs. 30/- from K. Rajgopal for transferring him from Udumalpet; accepted in January 1950 Bs. 25/- from Swami for giving a permanent
vacancy and demanded in or about November 1949 from Sri Narasimhain at Podanur 30 per cent, of the travelling allowance bills for passing the
same, on the foot that each of these accusations which constituted an offence u/s 161, I.P.C. amalgamated together made up the offence of
criminal misconduct punishable u/s 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, this accused was tried before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on these
instances of bribe-taking, constituting an offence u/s 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161, I.P.C. The learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, who carefully went into the matter found that the prosecution had affirmatively and satisfactorily proved beyond doubt the
accusation relating to the acceptance of a bribe of Rs. 30/- from Rajagopal (P. W. 1) on 1-5-1950 for transferring him to Podanur and that in
regard to the other two counts, held that he was not inclined to hold that the prosecution had so established the accused''s guilt. Therefore, he
convicted the accused for the offence proved u/s 161, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
There was an appeal therefrom and the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, did not go into the merits of the case but acquitted the accused on
two short grounds, viz., that firstly Ex. P. 4 cannot be accepted as a secondary evidence of the previous sanction of the General Manager of the
south Indian Railway, and now the General Manager of the Southern Railway, and secondly that when the charge was for criminal misconduct u/s
5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act and the trial Court found that two of the counts had not been satisfactorily proved and the charge of criminal
misconduct failed, resultantly the accused could not be convicted on the count ''proved u/s 161, I.P.C. but must have been acquitted in entirety.
The State has preferred this appeal from this incomprehensible acquittal and I shall examine the sufficiency of the two grounds on which this
acquittal has been rested by the learned Sessions Judge.
Point 1: --In regard to Ex. P. 4, the following facts should be borne in mind. On 27-7-1950, the General Manager, Mr. K. R. Ramanujam has
passed the following order:
South Indian Railway.
Office of the General Manager, (Anti-Corruption), Tiruchirapalli, 27-7-1950
Confidential
No. G/CB/PTJ/2
The Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Madras.
Case against G. Sadagopan, Establishment Head Clerk, Office of the District Engineer, Podanur -- Sanction order of prosecution. Your letter No.
BI. 1861/50 of 12-7-1950.
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Government of India u/s 6(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947), I, Sri K. R.
Ramanujam, the General Manager, South Indian Railway, Tiruchirapalli, applied my mind before giving sanction for initiation of the prosecution
against the accused after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and hereby sanction the initiation of criminal proceedings against G.
Sadagopan, Establishment Head Clerk, Office of the District Engineer, Podanur (an employee of the South Indian Railway X X ) who is alleged to
have been in the habit of receiving bribes and on 1-5-1950 to have demanded and accepted Rs. 30/- from one K. R. Rajagopal, a gangman to
transfer him from Udumalpet to Potianur and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (a) of Act 2 of 1947 and
Section 161, I.P.O.
(Initialled) K.R.R.
General Manager
Copy forwarded to the G. E., TPJ for information in continuation of this letter No. G/CB/-PTJ/2, dated 10-5-1950
(Initialled) K.R.R.
General Manager
The copy of the order received by the Special Establishment of Police, Madras, got lost and there is no dispute as frankly conceded by the learned
counsel for the accused, Mr. Basi Reddi, about the truth of this allegation. Therefore, the Special Police Establishment. Madras, secured the
original office copy of the order & it is exhibited as P. 4. Once again, there is no dispute that this Ex. P. 4 coming from proper official custody and
proved through P. W. 4, the confidential clerk attached to the Anti-Corruption section of the Manager''s office, South Indian Railway, is the
genuine original office copy. P. W. 4 testified that Ex. P. 4 is the order sanctioning prosecution of the accused and he was not cross-examined in
the first instance and subsequently in the further cross-examination he has testified: ""The sanction was given after perusing all relevant papers. I
know the signature of the General Manager. He has signed (it ought to have been initialled) Ex. P. 4"".
Therefore the only point for determination is whether this Ex. P. 4 can be accepted as secondary evidence, Section 65, Evidence Act deals with
cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. The instant case falls under Sub-clause (c), viz., when the original, which is
practically a copy here, has been destroyed or lost. The section proceeds to state that in cases falling under Clause (c) any secondary evidence of
the contents of the document is admissible. It is only in the cases falling under Clause (e) or (f), with which we have now nothing to do here, a
certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence is admissible. The best kind of secondary evidence has been produced in
this case, viz., paradoxically the original. In -- A.R.L.S.V.L. Sevugan Chettiar and Others Vs. Raja Srimathu Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha
Doraisingam and Others, , Varadachariar J. (as he then was) pointed out that where according to the official practice a book (we may add a file of
papers) is maintained containing the copies of the communications sent, the book of copies thus maintained is itself an official register. within the
meaning of Section 35 and a public document within the meaning of Section 74, Evidence Act. The decisions of this Court in ''A. S. No. 261 of
1925 (B)'' and in -- ''Navaneetha Krishna Thevar v. Ramaswami Pandia'', AIR 1918 Mad 889 (C) were relied on. There is no substance
therefore in the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that Ex. P. 4 cannot be accepted as satisfactory secondary evidence.
Incidentally, it seems to have been argued before the Assistant Sessions Judge and it was mentioned before me that the sanction order is
defective in the light of the decision in -- AIR 1948 82 (Privy Council) , in that it does not show that the General Manager had applied his mind to
the facts in issue and granted the sanction. I have purposely re-produced the order of the General Manager and also the testimony of P. W. 4 in
cross-examination. There is no dispute that for this prior sanction no type-design form or particular of words has been prescribed. Therefore, in
accordance with common sense and the requirements of justice all that the order of sanction must show is that all relevant materials were; placed
before the authority sanctioning the prosecution and that the authority considered those materials and the order sanctioning prosecution resulted
therefrom. The sanction need not set out the reasons for the sanction because if the Legislature had intended it, it would have added the
appropriate form of words. The object of this sanction is nothing more than to ensure the discouragement of frivolous, doubtful and impolitic
prosecution. Therefore, applying these tests we find that the sanction order reproduced above complies with all the requirements of a valid
sanction. In other words, the sanction in this case fully complies with the requirements laid down in the decision of somasundaram J. in -- ''Subba-
rao v. The King'', AIR 1949 Mad 710 (E) and Chandra Reddi J. in -- In Re: Shah Vajanji Kasturchand, . The sanction order in this case is
Irreproachable.
Point 2: The learned Sessions Judge has entirely overlooked that the charge framed in this case is a composite charge. It is an admixture of the
various elements constituting by themselves separate minor offences and which by such mixture make out an aggravated offence. In other words,
criminal misconduct u/s 5, Prevention of Corruption Act is an amalgam of bribe-taking plus habitually doing so. Therefore, the charge when
analysed into component parts is made up of an aggravated offence consisting of several particulars and on a resolving of the same several
complete minor offences. In such a case Section 238, Cri. P. C., is clearly applicable and it has been so applied in not dissimilar circumstances by
Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed JJ. in -- In Re: Raman Ambalam and Others, . Of course this is subject to two limitations, viz., the
complete minor offences put together should not exceed three and must have been committed within a space of 12 months from the first to the last
of such offences; and secondly, that no prejudice should have been caused to the accused by the course taken in the trial Court. In this case the
three complete minor offences of the same kind have all been committed within the space of 12 months as laid down in Section 234, Cri P. C. and
no prejudice is made out or is apparent from the record. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in finding that when the accused got
acquitted u/s 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, he should have been acquitted in entirety and could not have been convicted for a complete
minor offence.
In the result, the acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and inasmuch as the appeal was not heard on merits, it is remanded to be
taken on file and disposed of afresh on merits and according to law by the Sessions Judge, or by the Additional sessions Judge, other than the
Sessions Judge who has so unsatisfactorily disposed of this case.