Hanumant Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh Raojibhaithe State of Madhya P  INSC 3 (23 January 1952)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
CITATION: 1975 AIR 1083
Criminal trial--Circumstantial evidence--Sufficiency
of evidence for conviction--Caution against basing conviction on guess or
suspicion--Admission--Must be taken as a whole.
In dealing with circumstantial evidence there
is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal
proof. It is therefore right to remember that in cases where the evidence is of
a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Reg. v. Hodge [(1838) 2 Lew. 227] referred
An admission made by a person whether
amounting to a confession or not cannot be split up and part of it used against
him. It must be used either as a whole or not at all.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 56 of 1951.
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment
and Order dated the 9th March, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur
(C. R. Hemeon J.) in Criminal Revisions Nos. 152 and 153 of 1949 arising out of
Judgment and Order dated the 24th March, 1949, of the Court of the Sessions
Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 26 and 27 of 1949 and Judgment and
Order dated the 15th January, 1949, of the Court of the Special Magistrate,
Nagpur, in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1948.
1092 N.C. Chatterjee (B. Bannerjee and A.K.
Dart, with him) for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1951.
Bakshi Tek Chand(K. V. Tarnbay, with him) for
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1951.
T.L. Shivde, Advocate-General of Madhya Pradesh
(T. P. Naik, with him) for the respondent.
1952. Sept. 23. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by MAHAJAN J.-This is a consolidated appeal by special leave from the
two orders of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur passed on the 9th March,
1950, in Criminal Revisions Nos. 152 and 153 of 1949.
On a complaint filed by the Assistant
Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Nagpur, the appellant
in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1951 (H. G. Nargundkar, Excise Commissioner,
Madhya Pradesh), and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1951 (R.S.
Patel) were tried in the court of Shri B.K. Chaudhri, Special Magistrate, Nagpur,
for the offence of conspiracy to secure the contract of Seoni Distillery from
April, 1947, to March 1951 by forging the tender, Exhibit P-3A, and for
commission of the offences of forgery of the tender (Exhibit P-3A) and of
another document, Exhibit P-24. The learned Special Magistrate convicted both
the appellants on all the three charges. He sentenced R.S. Patel to rigorous
imprisonment for one year under each charge and to pay fines of Rs. 2,000, Rs.
2,000, and Rs. 1,000, under the first, second and third charges respectively.
The appellant Nargundkar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months
under each charge and to pay fines of Rs. 2,000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1.,000,
under the first, second and third charges respectively. Each of the appellants
appealed against their respective convictions and sentences to the Court of the
Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
The learned Sessions Judge quashed the
conviction of both the appellants under the first charge of criminal conspiracy
under section 120-B, I.P.C., but maintained the 1093 convictions and sentences
under section 465, I.P.C. or the charges of forging Exhibits P-3 (A) and P-24.
Both the appellants went up in revision against this decision to the High Court
but without any success. An application was then made under article 136 of the
Constitution of India for special leave to appeal and this was allowed by this
Court on 24th March, 1950 The appellant, Nargundkar, is a member of the Central
Provinces & Berar Provincial Service and held the substantive post of
Deputy Commissioner for several years. In April, 1946, he was appointed Excise
Commissioner. Madhya Pradesh, and continued to hold that office till the 5th
The appellant, R.S. Patel, is a sugar
Technologist and Chemical Engineer. He received his technical education and
practical training in America and after working as Chief Chemist and General
Manager in factories in Madras for five years, came to the Central Provinces in
1944, when the Provincial Government gave him a licence to set up a distillery
for the manufacture of industrial spirit.
On the 11th September, 1946, Nargundkar in
his capacity as Excise Commissioner invited tenders for working the Government
distillery at Seoni and supplying spirit to certain specified districts f or a
period of four years from 1st April, 1947, to 31st March, 1951. The last date
for submitting the tenders was the 31st October, 1946. In response to this
tender notice, five tenders were filed including those filed by (1) appellant,
R.S. Patel, (2) K.B. Habibur Rahman, (3). Zakirur Rahman, and (4) Edulji V. Doongaji
(P. W. 4), in sealed covers with the Excise Commissioner on the 31st October,
1946, and he handed them over with the seals intact to the office superintende.
Gadgil (P. w. 13), for safe custody. Gadgil
took them to his room and kept them under lock and key in the office safe.
The case for the prosecution is that on the
9th November, 1946, accused Nargundkar took these sealed tenders home, that the
tenders were opened by him at his house, that the rates of the tender (Exhibit
1094 P-6) of E.J. Doongaji (P. W. 4) were divulged to accused 2 (R. S. Patel),
who was allowed to substitute another tender (Exhibit P-3A), containing rates
lower than those of Doongaji, that thereafter these open tenders were brought
to the office on the 11th November, 1946, and given to Amarnath (P.W. 20) who
was the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, for submitting a report and that on
the recommendation of Nargundkar the tender of accused 2 (Patel) was accepted
and the contract was given to him. In May, 1947, on receipt of an application
(Exhibit P1) from one Dilbagrai (P. W. 14), enquiries were started by the
Both the accused became aware of the enquiry.
In order to create evidence in their favour they brought into existence a
letter (Exhibit P-24) and antedated it to 20th November, 1946. This document
was forged with the intention of committing fraud and of causing injury to
Amarnath (P. W. 20) and also to Doongaji (P.W. 4). Exhibit P-24 is alleged to
have been typed on a typewriter (Article A) which was purchased on the 30th
December, 1946, by the National Industrial Alcohol Co., Nagpur, of which
accused Patel was the managing director. It Was further alleged that the
endorsement made by accused 1 (Nargundkar) in the said letter "No action
seems necessary. File", and marked to Superintendent "S" was not
made on the 21st November, 1946, which date it bears. This letter was handed
over by accused 1 to the Office Superintendent, S.W. Gadgil (P.W. 13) about the
middle of August, 1947, and thereafter accused I wrote a letter (Exhibit P.
26), on the 2nd October, 1947, to Sri S. Sanyal (P.W. 19) who was then the
Excise Commissioner, requesting that this letter (Exhibit P-24) and a note
sheet (Exhibit P-27) be kept in sale custody.
Both the accused denied the commission of the
offences of criminal conspiracy, forgery and abetment thereof.
Nargundkar denied having attended office on
the 9th November, 1946. He denied having taken the tenders home. According to
him, the tenders were opened by him in the office on the 1095 11th November,
1946. Accused 2 denied that the tender of Doongaji was shown to him by accused
1 between the 9th and 11th November, 1946. He stated that the tender (Exhibit P3A)
was the original tender submitted by him on the 31st October, 1946. As regards
Exhibit P-24, it was denied that it was fabricated or antedated. Accused 2
stated that it was not typed on article A. He also alleged that the allegations
made in Exhibit P-24 were correct. Accused Nargundkar stated that the
endorsement was made by him on the 21st November, 1946. The first charge having
failed, nothing need be said about it herein.
In order to prove the second charge the
prosecution had to establish that Gadgil, P.W. 13, handed over the sealed
tenders on the 9th November, 1946, to accused Nargundkar, that the latter took
them home, that between the 9th and the 11th November he met Patel at his house
or elsewhere and that accused. Nargundkar showed or communicated the particulars
of the tender of Doongaji to accused Patel who substituted Exhibit P-3A for his
original tender before the 11th November, 1946. Admittedly there is no direct
evidence to prove any of these facts except the first one, and the nature of
the case is such that recourse could only be had to circumstantial evidence to
establish those facts. The fact that the sealed tenders were handed over by
Gadgil to accused Nargundkar on the 9th November has been held proved solely on
the uncorroborated testimony of Gadgil as against the denial of Nargundkar.
Gadgil was himself a suspect in the case. He was kept by the police away from
the office for about eight months during the investigation, he was asked to
proceed on leave at the instance of the police and his leave was extended at
their request. On the expiry of his leave he was kept off duty without salary
for a period of about five months but later on he was paid his full salary
after he had given evidence in support of the prosecution. He made additions
and improvements on vital points from stage to stage of his deposition and in
certain particulars his statement was contradicted by Ramaswami, P.W. 80. On
his own admission he is an accomplice in respect 1096 of the forgery of Exhibit
P-27, one of the documents alleged to have been forged for purposes of the
defence but concerning which no prosecution was started. Exhibit P-27 bears
date 31st October, 1946. Gadgil's statement about it is as follows:
"He (Nargundkar) put down his signature
and the date 31st October, 1946. This order was actually written by Sh. Nargundkar
in the note-sheet, Exhibit P-27, in the month of July or August, 1947. The
dates were antedated. In the margin of the note sheet I have put down my
initials S.W.G. and put the date 31st October, 1946. This note-sheet was not
prepared on gist October, 1946. He asked me to keep it in my custody." The
witness admittedly became a party to the preparation of a forged document.
Whether he was telling the truth, or he was telling a lie, as appears likely
from his crossexamination, he is in either event, not a person on whom any
reliance could be placed. It is curious that this aspect of the evidence of
Gadgil has not been noticed by any of the three courts below.
When the court of first instance and the
court of appeal arrive at concurrent findings of fact after believing the
evidence of a witness, this court as the final court does not disturb such
findings, save in most exceptional cases.
But where a finding of fact is arrived at on
the testimony of a witness of the character of Gadgil and the courts below depart
from the rule of prudence that such testimony should not be accepted unless it
is corroborated by some other evidence on the record, a finding of that
character in the circumstances of a particular case may well be reviewed even
on special leave if the other circumstances in the ease require it, and
substantial and grave injustice has resulted. After fully examining the
material on the record we have reached the conclusion that the courts below
were in error in accepting the uncorroborated testimony of Gadgil to find the
fact that he handed over the tenders to Nargundkar on the 9th November, 1946.
The witness was not allowed to live in a free atmosphere and was kept under
police 1097 surveillance during the whole of the period of investigation and the
trial and was rewarded with payment of his full salary after he had given
evidence to the satisfaction of the prosecution. He is a person who felt no
hesitation in deposing on oath that he willingly became a party to the forgery
of Exhibit 13-27.
Assuming that the accused Nargundkar had
taken the tenders to his house, the prosecution, in order to bring the guilt
home to the accused, has yet to prove the other facts referred to above. No
direct' evidence was adduced in proof of those facts. Reliance was placed by
the prosecution and by the courts below on certain circumstances, and intrinsic
evidence contained in the impugned document, Exhibit P-3A.
In dealing with circumstantial evidence the
rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such
cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the
place of legal proof and therefore it is right to recall the warning addressed
by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg v. Hodge (1) where he said :-"The
mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and
even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one
connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more
likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to
supply some little link that 'is wanting, to take for granted some fact
consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them
complete." It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature,the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In (1) (1838) 2 Lew. 227.
141 1098 other words, there must be a chain
of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as
to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused. In spite of the forceful arguments addressed to us by the learned
Advocate-General on behalf of the State we have not been able to discover any
such evidence either intrinsic within Exhibit P-3A or ,outside and we are
constrained to observe that the courts below have just fallen into the error
against which warning was uttered by Baron Alderson in the above mentioned
The trial magistrate was of the opinion that
friendship between the two accused was of a very rapid growth and that their
relations were very intimate and accused 2 was in a position to influence
accused 1. He thus found that there was motive for the commission of the crime.
The learned Sessions Judge disagreed with this finding and the High Court
agreed with the Sessions Judge on this point. It observed that the evidence which
tended to prove friendship or undue favour was not such as to form the basis
for a finding. It further found that there was nothing to show that the
appellant Nargundkar received any illegal reward or the promise of one for
showing Doongaji's tender to accused R.S. Patel. The first circumstance
therefore on which the trial Judge placed considerable reliance was negatived
by the court of appeal and in revision. It having been found that there was no
motive whatsoever for accused Nargundkar to show the tenders to accused Patel
and to take a substituted tender from him, the main link in the chain of reasoning
of the trial court vanishes. Amiable relations between the two accused or their
official relationship could not be regarded as sufficient motive for committing
the crime of forgery.
The mainstay of the prosecution case is the
intrinsic evidence of the contents of Exhibit P-3A itself which according to
the courts below are unusual, peculiar and strange and which according to the
Advocate General could not be there if it was a genune 1099 document. The
argument would have force provided the premises on which it is based are
correct. Having examined the contents of Exhibit P-3A, we do not find anything
very unusual or extraordinary in it which could not be there without its author
having seen Exhibit P-6.
We now proceed to examine the so-called
peculiar features in Exhibit P-3A. In order to appreciate the points made by
the learned Advocate-General it is necessary to set out certain facts. Exhibit
P-9 is the notice calling for tenders for the supply of country spirit in the
Seoni distillery area.
The rates which were called for by this
notice were as follows:
1. Flat rate for four years.
2. Rates on sliding scale for four years.
3. All-in-rate on the sliding scale for one
4. Flat rates on the basis of the price of
mahua flowers for three years 1948-51.
5. All-in-sliding scale rate on the basis of
the price of mahua flowers for three years 1948-51.
The trial magistrate held on a construction
of it that no rate or rates of separate years were asked for in this notice and
that one flat rate was only asked for, for four years. Habibur Rahman and
Zakirur Rahman in their tenders, Exhibits P-4 and P-5, quoted one flat rate for
four years and did not mention separate flat rates for separate years.
Doongaji in his tender, Exhibit P-6,
mentioned separate flat rates for each separate year also. He did so because he
consulted one Mr. Munshi, Personal Assistant to the Excise Commissioner, whether
he should quote each rate separately and Mr. Munshi told him that he could give
flat rate for the combined years as well as flat rates and also sliding scale
rates for each year separately. Admittedly accused 2 was working as an agent of
Habibur Rahman and his son Zakirur Rahman for the distillery contracts of Betul
and Seoni, and, therefore, he must have been the author not only of his own
tender but of the tenders submitted by Habibur Rahman and Zakirur Rahman,
Exhibits 1100 P-4 and P-5. All of them were acting together with the object of
getting the contract though they were submitting three separate tenders. The
trial magistrate held that as Habibur Rahman and Zakirur Rahman gave one flat
rate for four years as called for by Exhibit P-9, but accused 2, the author of
all these tenders, did not do it in Exhibit P-3A, but followed the method of
Doongaji in giving the rates of each year separately as well as the rate for
the combined four years. lie must have done so as he was shown the tender
Exhibit P-S. The question arises whether the circumstance that the accused
Patel and Habibur Rahrnan and Zakirur Rahman were acting together was such from
which a necessary inference arises that the accused Patel must have been the
author of all the three tenders and, if he were, that he could not have
departed from the method adopted by him in preparing Exhibits P-4 and P-5
unless and until he had seen Exhibit P-6. We are clearly of the opinion that
from the premises stated this inference does not necessarily follow.
Doongaji even after reading Exhibit P-9,
could not make up his mind whether to submit the tender with one flat rate for
all the four years or whether to submit it by giving separate flat rates for
each of the four years and made enquiry from the office of the Excise
Commissioner and then quoted separate rates for each of the four years
Patel who has admittedly considerable
experience of distillery contracts and about the method of submitting tenders
might very well have thought that it was best to quote a flat rate for all the
years as well as a flat rate for each year separately. The circumstance that he
did not do so in the other two tenders prepared by him does not materially
advance the prosecution case. The very object of submitting several tenders on
behalf of three persons acting in unison was to indicate to the excise
authorities that they were being submitted by three different persons. If there
were no variations whatsoever between those tenders that would have defeated
the very purpose of submitting them. Moreover, a variation of this trifling
nature between Exhibits P-3A and P-4 1101 and P-5 cannot be said to be of such
an unusual or of such an extraordinary character as to warrant the inference
that it could not have been made except without a look at the tender of
Doongaji. The circumstance is of a neutral character and the trial magistrate
and the learned Sessions Judge gave undue importance to it, being obsessed with
the idea that such a quotation of flat rates for each year could not be
mentioned in a tender by a contractor merely on a construction of Exhibit P-9
and without any further inquiry or without seeing the tender of somebody else
who had followed that method.
The next circumstance on which considerable
reliance is placed is that accused 2 studiously maintained rates below the
rates of Doongaji throughout, that when Doongaji lowered his rates for the
second year accused 2 did the same, and when Doongaji raised his rates for the
third and fourth years accused 2 also did so, at the same time maintaining
rates lower than Doongaji's rates. It is said that the system followed by
Habibur Rahman and Zakirur Rahman and Patel originally must have been the same
as Patel was the author of all the three tenders, that Habibur Rahman'srates
were higher than Zakirur Rahman's by six pies and this variation was constant
throughout, that in Patel's original tender which must have followed the same
system his rates would be lower than Habibur Rahman's by three pies throughout.
Exhibit P-3A, however, shows that this is not so.
Patel abandoned the system when he found that
his rates on his original scheme would be higher than the corresponding rates
of Doongaji. Learned Advocate General contended that it was impossible for Patel
unless he had seen Exhibit P-6, to quote rates of a large number of items
numbering about 197, in every case lower than the rates given in Exhibit P-6
and the circumstance that in not a single case he has quoted a higher rate than
Exhibit P-6 is conclusive of the fact that he had done so after he had seen
Exhibit P-6. It was also said that there is no satisfactory explanation why
Patel abandoned the scheme adopted by him in 1102 drawing up Exhibits P-4 and
P-5 and his original tender.
In our view, this circumstance again is not
so strange or peculiar as was made out by the learned Advocate-General or in
the courts below. In the first place, there is no material whatsoever for the
assumption that the so-called original tender was drawn up on the same scheme
as Exhibits P-4 and P-5 or that there was a constant variation in rates between
it and Habibur Rahman's tender. It has been assumed on mere surmise that the
first five rates in the tender, Exhibit P-3A, are the rates that had been
The original tender is not forthcoming and
there is no evidence at all about its contents. Moreover, in the deposition of
Doongaji it was elicited that in the year 1942 when tenders for the Seoni
distillery contract were called for, the rates quoted by Ratanshah were lower
than his rates for all items. He, however, voluntarily added that Ratanshah
obtained his rates of the previous contracts before he submitted his tender for
the year 1942 and that he had made a reduction of annas two to three in those rates
but he was forced to admit that the rate of Ratanshah in the tender was not
only lower than his but was also lower throughout than the rates of
Laxminarain, Haji Ismail and Habibur Rahman even without seeing their tenders.
From this statement it is quite clear that even without seeing the tenders of
different tenderers a contractor may quote rock-bottom rates of all items on
his own calculation or impelled by the desire of taking the contract anyhow. We
do not follow why Patel could not do in 1946 what was done by Ratanshah in his
tenders in 1942 and quote rates lower in all particulars and regarding all
items than the rates of Doongaji. If a person is out to give rockbottom rates
and his calculation is such that his rates work out lower than the rates of
others, it may well be that he may quote lower rates in respect of all items.
It was then said that Patel had adopted a
particular plan in submitting the three tenders, of himself, Habibur Rahman and
Zakirur Rahman and that his plan was that his rates should be less by three
pies 1103 than the rates he had quoted for Habibur Rahman, that in the first
five items of Exhibit 145 he stuck to that plan and did not alter the rates of
those items as originally submitted by him, as those rates were lower than the
rates of Doongaji but from the sixth item onwards he substituted new rates for
the ones he had originally submitted and he departed from the plan so that his
rates for each item were to be lower only by three pies as compared with the
rates of Habibur Rahman. It is no doubt true that Patel did not adhere to the
plan that he adopted in the first five items of his tender but is that a
circumstance from which any inference can be drawn that the first five items
are a part of his original tender or that he did so depart from them because he
had seen Exhibit P-6 and he wanted to underbid Doongaji. As we have already
said, the object of submitting three separate tenders ostensibly by persons who
were acting together was to secure the contract in one or the other name and
Patel who was the author of all the three documents may very well in his own
document have quoted much lower figures than were quoted by Habibur Rahman and
Zakirur Rahman, in order also to give the impression that all these tenders had
not been submitted by one and the same person. Be that as it may, a closer
examination of the tenders of Doongaji and Patel completely negatives the
theory of the courts below. The rates quoted in the first five items of Exhibit
P-145 are lower than the rates of Doongaji by 102, 69, 18, 12 and 9 pies
respectively. Even in the subsequent quotations except in one case where the
disparity in the tales of Doongaji and Patel is only two pies, the disparity in
the rates is from 9 to 11 pies. Patel is certainly a businessman and the whole
object of quoting the rates was to earn the maximum profit. If he had seen the
tender of Doongaji he would have modelled the rates in a manner that would give
him the highest profit. The learned AdvocateGeneral could not suggest any
reason whatsoever why Patel would maintain his quotation for the quantity of
50,000 gallons at Rs, 2-10-6 when the rate of Doongaji was Rs. 3-3-0 1104 He
could easily raise the quotation to Rs. 3 and similarly in all other cases he
could have underbid Doongaji by 2, 3 or 6 pies at the most. He need not have
maintained a disparity of 9 to 11 pies between his rates and the rates of
Doongaji. In our opinion, therefore, no conclusion of any character could be
drawn from the disparity in the rates of Doongaji or of Patel or of the
expected uniformity in the rates of Habibur Rahman or of R.S. Patel which would
establish that Exhibit P-3A had been prepared by having a look at Exhibit P-6.
Another circumstance on which reliance was
placed was that certain rates in Exhibit P-3A are lower than the corresponding
rates in Exhibit P-6 by only one or two pies.
There is no doubt that one or two rates are
lower by two pies than the rates in Exhibit P-6 but nothing follows from that
innocent circumstance, unless one starts with a presumption of guilt. Once it
is assumed that the tender of Doongaji was shown to Patel, all these
circumstances might to some extent fit in with the view that in certain
respects it may have been copied from Exhibit P-6. The courts below fell into
this error and departed from the rule that in a criminal case an accused person
is to be presumed to be innocent and that it is for the prosecution to
establish his guilt conclusively.
Next it was urged that in the covering letter
Exhibit P-3 sent by Patel he mentions three appendices numbered 1, 2 and 3, The
same expression finds place in the covering letter Exhibit P-4 of Habibur
Rahman and Exhibit P~5 of Zakirur Rahman, that appendices 1 to a of the tender
of Habibur Rahman and Zakirur Rahman correctly answer to the reference in the
covering letters but this is not so in Patel's case; on the other hand, instead
of appendix 1, Patel has appendix 1 (a) and 1 (b) and the number of his
appendices thus goes up to four and this departure from Exhibits P-4 and P-5
came about because of his having seen Exhibit P-6 and the number of appendices
annexed to it. It was urged that the original tender of Patel must have
contained three appendices like those of Habibur Rahman and 1105 Zakirur Rahman
and not appendix l(a) and l(b) as now found and that this circumstance showed
substitution of the 'tender. The learned magistrate, in our opinion, in giving
importance to this circumstance mislead himself completely.
In the first place, it is not accurate to say
that the expression appendices 1, 2 and 3 was common to the covering letters
Exhibts P-4 and P-5. In Exhibit P-5 the appendices are marked A, B and C.
Therefore, no uniform method was adopted by Patel in marking the appendices to
the tenders, Exhibits P-4 and P-5. Secondly, there is no conflict in the
expression of the appendices of Habibur Rahman and Patel. They have been marked
as 1, 2 and 3 and a mere subdivision of the first appendix into (a) and (b)
could not be taken to be a departure from the method adopted in the description
of the appendices. It may further be observed that the covering letter signed
by Patel mentions four appendices, while the covering letters of Habibur and
Zakirur Rahman only mention three appendices. The trial magistrate as well as
the Sessions Judge ignored all these differences in the method of the
description of the appendices and assumed that they had been uniformly
The result therefore is that all these
so-called peculiar features found by the courts below in Exhibit P-3A should be
eliminated from consideration and it must be held that there are really no
circumstances inconsistent with Exhibit P3A being a genuine document. It could
have been made out without looking at Exhibit P-6. In this view of the case the
whole basis on which the judgments of the courts below are founded vanishes,
and in the absence of any evidence of motive, we are of the opinion that the
facts did not on any just or legal view of them warrant a conviction, and although
the proceedings are taken to have been unobjectionable in form, justice has
gravely and injuriously miscarried. We therefore set aside the conviction of
both the appellants on the second charge and acquit them, 142 1106 In order to
appreciate the third charge, it is necessary to set out the terms of Exhibit
P-24 which it is said was antedated in order to create evidence for the defence
of the accused and to injure Amarnath. It is in these terms:
Congress Nagar, Nagpur, 20th November, 1946.
The Commissioner of Excise, C.P. & Berar,
Dear Sir, I beg to submit few of my
complaints for such action as you may be pleased to take, which are as under.
I went to see Mr. Amarnath last week, at his
residence in connection with Seoni Distillery work. I saw Mr. Edulji and his
partner with Mr. Amarnath in the office room of his residence with some office
files. From the papers I could recognize my tender open on the table in front
of them. As soon as I went there, all of them were astonished and they could
not speak with me for a moment, and then they carried on some dry general
conversation with me.
Same way after about a week, when I went to
Seoni for mahua bill, when Mr. Amarnath visited for sanctioning the advance, I
had the opportunity to see Mr. Amarnath in dak bungalow at about 9-30 p.m. when
I saw Mr. Mehta the exmanager of Mr. Edulji (who is also the manager of Seoni
Electric Co.) with Mr. Amarnath near table with the same file of the tender. No
doubt after seeing the above two incidents I requested Mr. Amarnath to be fair
in this affair.
I am bringing these incidents to your notice,
as I fear that something underhand may not be going on, and I am afraid that my
tender may be tampered with.
Hoping to get justice, Yours faithfully, Sd.
R.S. Patel." 1107 The words "Congress Nagar, Nagpur, 20th November,
1946" are in manuscript, while the rest of the letter has been typed. The
digit 6 of the year 1946 has been over-written on digit 7 written in
continental style and it is apparent to the naked eye that originally the
writer wrote 7 and subsequently changed it to 6. It was contended by the
learned Advocate General,--and this is the finding of the courts below, --that
this letter was written some time during the investigation of the case in July
or August 1947, and was antedated in order to implicate Amarnath and to use it
as evidence in defence. The point for decision is whether there is any evidence
whatsoever to establish this act.
We have not been able to discover any such
evidence on the record; on the other hand the intrinsic evidence in the letter
proves that most likely it came into existence on the date it bears. The
relevant facts are that the tenders were opened by accused Nargundkar on the
11th November, 1946, he handed them over after making the endorsements to
Amarnath and Amarnath had to submit a report about them. It is alleged in this
letter that "last week", i.e., during the week commencing on the 11th
November, 1946, accused Patel went to see Amarnath and there he saw Edulji Doongaji
with him with his tender open on his table in front of him and that he was
astonished at it, that about a week later he again went to Seoni and had the
opportunity to see Amarnath and Mr. Mehta, ex-manager of Edulji Doongaji, was
with him and the tender file was lying there. It was stated that he had
requested Amarnath to be fair in this affair and the Commissioner was asked
that he should see that his tender was not tampered with and he got justice.
The whole purpose and object of this letter was to protect himself against any
underhand dealing in the granting of the contract. In his statement under
section 342, Cr. P.C., Patel said that he saw Amarnath on the morning of the
15th or 16th November, 1946, and he met Amarnath at Seoni at the distillery
premises on the 16th November, 1946, and on the same 1108 day he met him at
about 9 p.m. at the Seoni dak bungalow and that he again met him on the 17th
November, at 10 a.m. He also stated that he had gone to see Amarnath at his
residence at Nagpur between the dates 12th and 18th November.
It was contended by the learned
Advocate-General that his statement was inconsistent with the recitals
contained in Exhibit P-24. We see nothing inconsistent between this statement
and the recitals. If accused Patel saw Amarnath on the 12th, the letter having
been written on the 20th November, it would be quite a correct thing to say
that he saw him "last week" and the next recital when he said that
about a week thereafter he saw him again is quite consistent with his going and
seeing him on the 16th or 17th November.
That would be about a week after the first
visit. To draw any conclusion adverse to the accused from a slight inaccuracy
in the description of dates and to conclude therefrom that it was established
that the accused Patel had seen Amarnath on the 9th November, 1946, amounts to
unnecessarily stretching a point against the accused. The recitals in the
letter, true or false, are quite consistent with the letter bearing date 20th
November, 1946. The magistrate observed that the vagueness about the date and
the week shows that the allegations therein are not correct. We have not been
able to understand how -the vagueness about the date could lead to the
conclusion arrived at. Emphasis was laid on the overwriting of the figure 6
over the figure 7 in the manuscript part of the letter. It was said that the
normal experience is that it becomes a subconscious habit to automatically
write the year correctly when several months have elapsed after the change of
the year and that by sheer force of habit the correct year must have been put
down when the date was entered in the letter Exhibit P-24 and that the figure
was subsequently changed to 6 and this fact was an indication that the letter
was written sometime in the year 1947. In our view this argument again involves
an element 1109 of conjecture. The mistake may well have been inadvertently
made and the correction made there and then. That such mistakes are not very
uncommon or unusual and occur in official documents is fully established on the
record, in para 93 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and it is said
"The appellants have produced a file
which is Exhibit ID-35. It contains a sheet which bears pages 9 and 10. On the
10th page there are two office notes-one is written by A.M. Naidu and the other
by the appellant Nargundkar. A.M. Naidu below his signature has written
'6-4-1948'. The appellant Nargundkar below his signature has written '6-41947'.
The other notes in the office file show that the correct date of the two
signatures was 6th August, 1947.
Thus in this sheet there are two mistakes in
mentioning the number of the month and one mistake in mentioning the number of
the year. The appellants contend that such mistakes are possible. Nobody can
deny that such mistakes are possible;
but it has to be decided what inferences can
be drawn from such mistakes, if there is other evidence also." We have
looked in vain for other evidence to prove that the letter was not written on
'the date it bears. Even Gadgil could not explain why he said that the letter
was written in July, 1946. It is clear that he is not telling the' truth in
this respect. The endorsement made on the letter by accused Nargundkar clearly
bears the date 21st November, 1946, and if this letter was not given to him on
the date of the endorsement and was given to him several months afterwards he
would in ordinary course have made some note either on the letter or in the
receipt register of his office when that letter was received by him. Then it
was said that this letter was not in the file of the tenders which were kept
separate. The Commissioner had noted that the letter be filed and he sent it to
the office. If the office people did not put it in the file, from that circumstance
no adverse inference could 1110 be drawn as to the date that the letter bears.
It is dear that no forger would have in such a clumsy manner corrected 1947
into 1946 so as to leave the original figure "7" intact and thus
leave evidence of its suspicious character writ large on its face. There was no
hurry about it, and a second letter without the alteration could easily have
Next it was argued that the letter was not
typed on the office typewriter that was in those days, viz., article B, and
that it had been typed on the typewriter article A which did not reach Nagpur
till the end of 1946. On this point evidence of certain experts was led. The
High Court rightly held that opinion of such experts was not admissible under
the Indian Evidence Act as they did not fall within the ambit of section 45 of
the Act. This view of the High Court was not contested before us. It is curious
that the learned Judge in the High Court, though he held that the evidence of
the experts was inadmissible, proceeded nevertheless to discuss it and placed
some reliance on it. The trial magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge used
this evidence to arrive at the finding that, as the letter was typed on article
A which had not reached Nagpur till the end of December, 1946, obviously the
letter was antedated. Their conclusion based on inadmissible evidence has
therefore to be ignored.
It was further held that the evidence of
experts was corroborated by the statements of the accused recorded under
section 342. The accused Patel, when questioned about this letter, made the
"Exhibit P-31 was typed on the office
typewriter article B. Exhibit P-24 being my personal complaint letter was typed
by my Personal Assistant on one of the typewriters which were brought in the
same office for trial, with a view to purchase. As this was my personal
complaint no copy of it was kept in the Correspondence Files Exhibit P-34 and
Exhibit P-35 just 1111 as there is no copy in these files of my tender Exhibit
P3A .............. In the month of September, October and November, 194t5,
several machines were brought for trial from various parties in our of-rice
till the typewriter article A was purchased by National Industrial Alcohol Ltd.
Company." If the evidence of the experts is eliminated, there is no
material for holding that Exhibit P-24 was typed on article A. The trial
magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge used part of the statement of the
accused for arriving at the conclusion that the letter not having been typed on
article B must necessarily have been typed on article A. Such use of the
statement of the accused was wholly unwarranted. It is settled law that an
admission made by a person whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be
split up and part of it used against him. An admission must be used either as a
whole or not at all. If the statement of the accused is used as a whole, it
completely demolishes the prosecution case and, if it is not used at all, then
there remains no material on the record from which any inference could be drawn
that the letter was not writeen on the date it bears.
For the reasons given above we hold that
there is no evidence whatsoever on the record to prove that this letter Exhibit
P-24 was antedated and that being so, the charge in respect of forgery of this
letter also fails. Read as a whole, this letter cannot be said to have been
written with the intention of causing any injury to Amarnath or for the purpose
of creating a defence in respect of the second charge. The letter read as a
whole is an innocuous document and its dominant purpose and intent was to
safeguard the interests of accused Patel and to protect him against any
underhand or unfair act of his rival contractors. We cannot infer any intent to
defraud or any intention to injure Amarnath, though in order to protect himself
accused Patel made certain allegations against him. We therefore set aside the
conviction of both the appellants under the third charge and acquit them.
1112 The result is that the consolidated appeal
is allowed, the judgments of all the three courts below are set aside and the
appellants are acquitted.
Agent for the appellant in Criminal Appeal
No. 56 of 1951: Ganpat Rai.
Agent for the appellant in Criminal Appeal
No. S7 of 1951: Rajinder Narain.
Agent for the respondent: P.A. Mehta.