General v. The State of Madhya

the Assistant Inspector- General Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Nagpur, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of . (H. G. Nargundkar, Excise Commissioner, 1951 Madhya Pradesh), and 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 tender, Exhibit P-3A, and for 1951 by commission 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 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 appellant Nargundkar The 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 Each of the appellants appealed charges respectively. against respective convictions and sentences to _the Court of the Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The learned . Sessions the conviction of both the appellants under the first charge of criminal conspiracy I. P. C., but maintained ~he under section 120-B, Judge quashed imprisonment respectively. rigorous 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. .' • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1093 conv1ct1ons and sentences under section 465, I.P.C., on the charges of forging Exhibits P-3 (A) and P-24. Both the appellants went up in revision against this deci- sion to the H'.1gh Court but without any success. An then made under article 136 of the application was Constitution of India for special leave to appeal and this was allowed by this Court on 24th March, 1950. 1s a member of the Central Provinces & Berar Provincial Service and held substantive post of Deputy Commissioner several years. In April, 1946, he was appointed Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, and continued to hold till tl.ie 5th September, 1947. that office The appellant, Nargundkar, The appellant, R. S. Patel, is a sugar Technologist and Chemical Engineer. He received his technical education and practical trainirtg in America and after working as Chief Chemist and General Manager in factories in Madras for five years, came to the Central Provinces m 1944, when the Provincial Government gave him a licence to set up a distillery for the manu- facture of industrial spirit. On the 11th September, 1946, Nargundkar m his capacity as Excise Commissioner invited tenders for working the Government distillery at Seoni and sup- plying spirit to certain specified districts for 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. $. Patel, (2) K. B. Habibur Rahman, (3) Zakirur Rahman, and (4) Edulji P. 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 superintendent, S. W. 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 1s that on the gth November, sealed tenders home, that the tenders were opened b-y him at his house, that the rates of the tender (Exhibit accused Nargundkar took 1946, 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Mahajan /. 1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952J letter tender In order containing those of Doongaji, tender of accused 2 P-6) of E. J. Doongaji (P. W. 4) were divulged to accused 2 (R. S. Patel), who was allowed to substitute another (Exhibit P-3A), that thereafter these open tenders were brought to the office on the 11th November, 1946, and given to Amarnath (P.W. 20) who the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, for sub- mitting a report and that on the recommendation of Nargundkar (Patel) was accepted and the contract was given to him. In May, 1947, on receipt of. an application (Exhibit P-1) from one Dilbagrai (P. W. 14), enquiries were started by Both the accused the Anti-Corruption Department. the enqmry. became aware of to create evidence in their favour they brought into existence (Exhibit P-24) and antedated it a to 20th November, 1946. This document was forged with the intention of committing fraud and of causing injury to, Amarnath to Doongaji (P. W. 20) and also (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 managmg director. It was endorsement made by accused 1 (Nargundkar) in the 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 Super- intendent, S. W. Gadgil (P. W. 13) about the middle of August, 1947, and thereafter accused 1 wrote a letter (Exhibit P. 26), on the 2nd October, 1947, to Sri S. Sanyal (P. W. 19) who was then the Excise Com- mi5.'ioner, (Exhibit P-24) and a note be kept in safe custody. further alleged (Exhibit P-27) requesting that this letter Both the accused denied the commission of the forgery and abet- offences of criminal conspuacy, thereof. Nargundkar denied having attended office on the 9th November, 1946. He denied having to him, the tenders were opened by him in the office on the tenders home. According •• ' / 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Mahajan /. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1095 .. t Accused 2 denied 11th November, 1946. ). tender of Doongaji was shown to him by accused 1 between the 9th and 11th November, 1946. He stat- (Exhibit P-3A) was the original ed that the tender tender submitted by him on the 31st October, 1946. it was denied that it was As regards Exhibit P-24, fabricated or antedated. Accused 2 stated that it was not typed on article A. He also alleged that the allega- t in exrubit P-24 were correct. Accused tions made ' Nargundkar stated that the endorsement was made by The first charge him on the 21st November, 1946. having failed, nothing need be said about it herein. ) tenders on the 9th November, 1946, In order to prove the second charge the prosecution had to establish that Gadgil, P. W. 13, handed over the sealed 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 showed or communicated the particulars Nargundkar of the tender of Doongaji to accused Patel who sub- stituted Exrubit 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 sealed tenders were handed over by Gadgil to accused Nargundkar on the 9th November has been held proved solely on the un- corroborated 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 alxmt eight months during the · investigation, he to proceed on leave at the instance of the extended at their request. police and ills leave he was kept off duty On the expiry of his 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 addi- tions and improvements on vital points from stage to ,. and in certain particulars his stage of his deposition -. statement was contradicted by Ramaswami, P. W. 30 . . •'~ On his ,own admission he is an accomplice in respect I was asked leave was :.. • ' . 1952 Hanumant v. The Stat.e of Madhya Pradesh. ,-. Mahaian ]. 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952) ' . ' ' 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 : . \n "He (Nargundkar) put down his signature and the date 31st October, ,1946. This. order was actually written by Sh. Nargundkar 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 31st October, 1946. He asked me to keep it in my custody." The wit:lless admittedly became a party to the pre- paration of a forged document. Whether he was tell- ing the truth, or he was telling a lie, as appears likely from his cross-examination, he is in either event, not a person on whom any relian.ce 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. . testimony When the ~ourt of first i~stance a~d the court of appeal arnve .. ~t concurrent. findings of fact after be- lieving the evidence of a witness, this court as the final court does not disturb such findings, save m most exceptional cases. But where a finding of fact is arriv- ~d at on the testimony. of a witness of. the character of Gadgil and the courts below depart from the rule of should not be accepted. prudence that such unless it is corroborated by some other evidence on the record, a finding of that character in the circum, stances of a particular. case may well be reviewed even. OU ,special leave if the other circumstances in the c;l.Se require . it,, and injustice has resulted.. After £ully examining t;he material on tht; 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, 9tli over the November, 1946. The witness was not allowed to live ill a free and was kept under poliC:e . to Nargundkar. on sµbstantial and grave atmosphere tenders . the ~, I ' ' ... .. .. ., t .. • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1097 surveillance during the whole of the period of investi· gation and the trial and was rewarded with payment of his full salary after he had given evidence to the satisfaction of the prosecution. He ~s a person who (elt no hesitation in deposing on oath that he willingly' became a party to the forgery of Exhibit P-27. 1'952 Hanumant v. The State df Maahya· Pradesh; Assuming that the accused Nargundkar had taken Mahaian /. the tenders to his house, the prosecution, in order to bring the guilt home to the accused, has yet to prove referred to above. No direct evidence the other facts was, adduced in proof of those facts. Reliance was placed by the prosecution and by the courts below on certain circumstances, and intrinsic eyidence contain- In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases the danger that con- is always jecture or. suspicion may take the place of legal proof and therefore it is right to recall the warning address- ed by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg v. Hodge (1) where lie said :- impugned document, Exhibit P-3A. "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 individual, the more likely was ii:, con- mind of the sidering 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 necessa·ry to render them complete." It is well to remember is of a circumstantial nature, that in cases where the evidence the circum~ the conclusion of guilt is fo be stances from which 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 In hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. (1) (1838) 2 Lew. 227. 1952 Hanumant .v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. MahajiJ11 f. 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclµsion consistent with the innocence of the accus- ed and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by forceful arguments the accused. addressed to us by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the State we have not been able to discover intnns1c 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 case. such evidence either In spite of ~ , .\ tended to prove It further found The trial magistrate was of the opinion that friend- two accused was of a very rapid ship between the growth and that relations were very intimate and accused 2 was in a position to influence accused 1. He thus found that there was motive for the commis- sion of the crime. The learned Sessions Judge dis- agreed with this finding and the High Court agreed with the Sessions Judge on this point. It observed that · friendship or the evidence which undue favour was not such as to form the basis for a there was nothing to finding. received any illegal reward or the promise of one for showing The first Doongaji's tender to accused R. S. Patel. Judge circumstance placed considerable It having been found court of appeal and in revision. 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 trial court vanishes. two accused or their Amiable relations between the official relationship could not be regarded· as sufficient motive for committing the crime of forgery. there was no motive whatsoever reliance was negatived by the appellant Nargundkar therefore on which reasoning of the 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 the Advocate- and which according to there if it was · a genuine General could not be f ·- ) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 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 anything very unusual or extraordinary in it which could not be there without its author having seen Exhibit P-6. 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. We now proceed to examine the s0-called peculiar Mahajan /. In order to appreciate the features m Exhibit P-3A. points made by learned Advocate-General it is necessary to set out certain facts. Exhibit P-9 is the supply of country tenders for the notice calling for 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 year 1947-48.

#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. separate rates for four years. 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 Habibur Rahman and Zakirur for, for their tenders, Exhibits P-4 and P-5, quoted Rahman in one flat rate for four years and did not mention sepa- Doongaji m his rate flat separate years. tender, Exhibit P-6, mentioned 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 sepa- accused 2 was working as an rately. agent of Habibur Rahman and his son Zakirur the distillery contracts of Betul and Rahman Seoni, and, therefore, he must have been the author not only of his own tender but of the tenders submitted bv Habibur Rahman and Zakirur Rahman, Exhibits Admittedly 1952 Hanumant v. The Stat~ of Madhya Pradesh, Mahajan·/, llOO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] accused opm10n the rate for though The them were acting tenders and, three separate together with P-4 and P-5. All of they were the object of getting the contract trial magis- submitting tenders. trate held 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 it in Exhibit P-3A, but followed tenders, did not do the method of Doongaji in giving the rates of each the combined year separately as well as four years. He must have done so as he was shown the tender Exhibit P-6. The question arises whether the Patel and Habibur circumstance Rahman and' Zakirur Rahman were acting together inference arises that was such from which a necessary accused Patel must have author if he were, that he of all could not have departed 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 stated this inference does not· necessarily follow. Doongaji even . aft~r i;eadfr1g Eiil~ibii: P-9, could not make up his mind whether to submit the tender with one flat rate for all th~ 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 separately also: Patel ~ho has admittedly considera- ble . experien~e ,of distillery contracts and about the method. 0f submitting tenders might very well have thought that it was best to quote a flat rate for all the years as well rate for each year separately. The circumstance that he did, not .do so in the other 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 authori- ties that they were being submitt, ed by three different If there . were no. variations whatsoever bet- persons. ween tho;e tend~rs that woi'.il<l have ' defeated the ,/ery purpose of submitting them. Moreover,. a. variation of this trifling nature between Exhibits P-3A and P-4 tenders prepared by him does as a flat premises ( f ,_ ) S.C.R. SuPREME COURT REPORTS 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 circums- tance is of a neutral character and the trial magistrate gave undue import- and the learned Sessions Judge the idea that such ance to it b ' ' a quotation of flat rates e tender by a contractor merely on a mentioned in a construction of Exhibit P-9 and without any further inquiry or without seeing the _tender of somebody else who had followed that method. for each year could not being obsessed with 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Mahajan J. tenders, the rates of Doongaji same time maintaining The next <;ircumstance on which considerable reli- ance is placed is that accused 2 studiously maintained rates below 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 rates lower than Doongaji's rat~s. , 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 that Habibur Rah- author of all the man' s rates were higher .. than Zakirur Rahman's by constant throughout, six pies and this variation was that in Patel's original tender which must have follow- system his rates·. would be lower than ~d the same. throughout. Exhibit Habibur Rahman's by Patel P-3A, however, shows abandoned . the that his rates on his original scheme would be higher than the corresponding rates of Doongaji. ~earned Advo~ate­ General impossible for Patel that it was 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 ~as al.so said that there is no satisfactory explanation' scheme adopted by him in why Patel abandoned the three pies that this is not so. system when he . found contended 1952 Hanumant v. Tht Stat• of Madhya Pradesh. MahaJan /. 1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] drawing up Exhibits P-4 and P-5 tender. and his original tender. In our view, circumstance again is not so strange or peculiar as · was made out by the learned In the first Advocate-General or in the courts below. place, there is no material whatsoever for the assump- tion 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 It has been assumed on Habibur Rahman's first five rates in the tender, !J1ere surmise that the rates that had been originally Exhibit P-3A, are the quoted. The original "tender is not forthcoming and there is no evidence at all about its contents. More- over, 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 Ratan- shah were lower than his rates for all items. He, how- ever, voluntarily added that Ratanshah obtained his the previous contracts before he submitted his rates of that he had made a 1942 and tender for the year 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 statement it is quite clear that tenders. From this even without seeing the tenders of different tenderers a eontractor 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 parti- culars and regarding all items than the rates of Doon- If a person is out to give rockbottom rates and gaji. his calculation is such that his rates work out lower than tihe rates of others, it may well be that he may quote lower rates in respect of all items. seeing . It was then said that Patel had adopted a particular plan in tenders, . of himself, Habibur Rahman and Zakirur Rahman and that his rates should be plan was l<Jss by three pies submitting the that his ( 1952 Hanumant 1'. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Mahaian /. ' f. -I > S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1103 . than the rates he had quoted tender but that he adopted compared with It is no doubt 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 the rates of Habibur three pies as Rahman. true that Patel did not adhere to the plan in the first five that a circumstance items of his 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, three separate the object of submitting 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 docu- ments may very well in his own document have than were quoted by quoted much figures 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 it may, a closer examination of the tenders of that as Doongaji completely theory of 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. quotations except in one case where the disparity in the rates of Doongaji and Patel is only two pies, the disparity in the rates is from 9 Patel is certainly a to 11 pies. the whole object of quoting the rates businessman and If he had seen the was to earn the maximum profit. tender of Doongaji he would have modelled the rates in a manner that would give him the highest profit. The learned Advocate-General could not suggest any reason whatsoever why Patel would maintain his the quantity of 50,000 gallons at quotation Rs. 2-10-6 when the rate of Doongaji was Rs. 3-3-0. the courts below. subsequent negatives Even Patel The 1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ' j i ~ •• ~ . i. ~ • . - [195~] 1952 ,_,_ Hanumant . v. The State of ' Madhya Pradesh. Mahajan /. rates and He, could easily raise the quotation to Rs. 3 and simi- larly in all other cases he could have underbid Doon- gaji by 2, 3 or 6 pies at the most. He need not have 11 pies between maintained a disparity of 9 In our rates of Doongaji. therefore, no conclusion of any character opinion, could be drawn 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. from the disparity in from that 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 innocent circumstance, un- 'nothing follows less one starts with a presumption of guilt. Once it is tender of Doongaji was shown to assumed that the Patel, all to some extent circumstances might 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 thP. prosecution to establish his guilt conclusively. Next that in the covering it was urged letter Exhibit P-3 sent by Patel he m·emions three appen- ·dices numbered 1, 2 and 3. The same expressioP. finds place in the covering letter Exhibit P-4 of Habibur Rahman and Exhibit P-5 of Zakirur Rahman, that appendices 1 to 3 of the tender of Habibur Rahman ·and Zakirur Rahman correctly answer to the reference in the covering this is not so in Patel's case; on the other hand, instead of appendix 1, Patel l(a) and l(b) and the _number of his has appendix appendices thus goes' up t<i four and this departure from Exhibits P-4 and P-5 came about because of his having seeri Exhibit P-6 and the number of appen- It was urged that 'the original dices annexed to it. tender of Patel must ·have contained three ap- pendices ! . ' . of Habibur letters but "Rahman like· .. - • 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Mahajan /. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS . . 1105 himself showed tenders, and P-5. appendices is not accurate learned magistrate, appendices. covering In common Zakirur Rahman and not appendix l(a) and I(b) as sub- now found and that this circumstance stitution of the tender. The in giving importance this circum- our opinion, completely. stance mislead the expres- to say place, appendices 1, 2 and 3 was In Ex- letters Exhibits P-4 covering hibit P-5 the appendices are marked A, B and C. Therefore, no uniform method was adopted by Patel in marking Ex- hibits P-4 and P-5. Secondly, there is no conflict in the expression of the appendices of Habbibur 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 It adopted in the description of letter may further be observed signed by Patel mentions four appendices, while letters of Habibur and Zakirur Rahman covering only mention trial magistrate three appendices. The as well as the Sessions Judge ignorc;d all these differ- ences in the method of the description of the appen- dices and assumed they had been uniformly described. The these so-called in Ex- peculiar features found by the courts below hibit P-3A should be eliminated consideration and it must be held that there are really no cucum- stances being a It could have been made out genuine document. In this view of without the case the whole basis on which judgments 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 injurious1y miscarried. We therefore set aside the convktion of both the ap- pellants on the second charge and acquit them. looking at Exhibit P-6. founded vanishes, inconsistent with Exhibit P-3A courts below therefore that all result - • ' .. t ( • - 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] 1952 Hanumant v. The Stai. of Madhya Pradesh. Mahajan /. In order to appreciate the third charge, Is neces- sary to set out the terms of Exhibit P-24 which IS said was antedated in order tt> create evidence for the defence of the accused and It is in these terms : " to miure Amarnath. Congress Nagar, Nagpur, 20th November, 1946. The Commissioner of Excise, C. P. & Berar, Nagpur. Dear Sir, I beg to submit few of my complaints for such to take, which action as you may be pleased as under. I went to see Mr. Amarnath last week, at his resi- dence in connection with Seoni Distillery work. I saw Mr. Edulji and his partner with Mr. Amarnath in the office room of his residence with 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. some office visited Same way after about a week, when I went to Seoni for mahua bill, when Mr. Amarnath 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 ex-manager of Mr. Edulji (who ii also the manager of Seoni Electric Co.) with Mr. Amarnath near table with the same file of the tender. No doubt after seeing in- cidents I requested Mr. Amarnath to be fair in 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." 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Prades/J. Mahajan/. I t S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1107 likely the date jn came the rest of letter proves The digit 6 of is whether there to the naked eye in manuscr11pt, while It was contended by is any evidence whatsoever in the into existence on letter was written some time during the 1947, implicate Amarnath The words "Congress Nagar, Nagpur, 20th Novem- ber, 1946" are letter has been typed. the year 1946 has been over-written on digit 7 written in continental that origi- style and i't is apparent nally the writer wrote 7 and subsequently changed it to 6. learned Advocate- the finding of the courts below, General,-and this in- -that this vestigation of the case in July or August was antedated in order to to use it as evidence in defence. The point for deci- to dis- establish this fact. We have not been able cover any such evidence on the reconi; on the other hand the instrinsic evidence It bears. The relevant facts are that the tenders were opened by accused Nargundkar on the 11th Novem- ber, 1946, he handed endorsements submit a report about them. thi~ letter· that "last week", i.e., during the week com- mencing on the 11th November, 1946, accused Patel went to saw Edulji Doongaji with him with his tender open on his table in front of him and 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 tender file was lying there. It was stated that he had requested Amarnath to be fair in this affair and that his Commissioner was asked that he should see tender was not tampered with and he got justice. The whole purpose and object of this letter was to protect any underhand dealing in the grant himself against sec- ing of In his tion 342, Cr. P. C., Patel said that he saw Amarnatt on the morning of the 15th or 16th November, 1946, and he met Amarnath at Seoni at the distillery pre- mises on the 16th November, 1946, and on the sam<! to Amarnath and Amarnath had them over after making that he was astonished at see Amarnath and statement under the contract. It is alleged there he it, 16-10 S. C. India 71 1952 Hanumant v. TheState of Madhya Pradesh. Mahajan J. 1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1952] If learned Advocate-General the Seoni dak day he met him at about 9 p.m. at: that he agam met Him on the 17th bungalow and November, at 10 a.m. He also stabed that he had gone to see Amarnath at his residence at Nagpur bet- It was con- ween the dates 12th and 18th November. tended by that his inconsistent with the recitals contained statement was inconsistent bet- 111 Exhibit P-24. We see nothing accused the recitals. ween this statement 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 Novem- ber. 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 conclude therefrom accused Patel had seen Amarnath on the 9th Novem- a ber, 1946, point against the accused. The recitals m the letter, true or letter bearing date 20th November, 1946. The magistrate observed correct. We have not been able to understand how the vagueness about the date could lead to the con- laid on the over- clusion arrived at. Emphasis was writing of the figure 6 over the figure 7 in the manus- cript part of the letter. It was said that the normal expenence is that a subconscious habit •o automatically write the year correctly when several months have elap~ed after · the change of the year 2nd 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 subse- quently changed to 6 and this fact was an indication tliat the letter was written some time in the year 1947. In our view this argument again involves an element that the vagueness about the date and that it was established that the allegations to unnecessarily consistent with figure was it becomes stretching are quite amounts therein false, ' • ' \_ 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pr.adesh. Mahajan /. I r ' S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1109 The mistake may well have been of conjecture. inadvertently made and the correction made there and then. That such mistakes are not very uncommon or unusual and occur in official documents established on the record, in para 93 of the judgment follows: learned Sessions Judge and is said '6-4-1948'. "The appellants have produced a file which It contains a sheet which bears pages 9 Exhibit ID-35. 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 appellant Nargundkar below his signature has written '6-4-1947'. The other notes in the office correct date of the two signatures was 6th August, 1947. Thus in this sheet there are two mistakes 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 mis- takes, if there is other evidence also." file show The letter the date 21st November, 1946, We have looked in vain for other evidern;e 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 endorse- accused Nargundkar ment made on the clearly bears 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 Commis- sioner had noted that the letter be filed and he sent it If the office people did not put it in the to the office. file, from that circumstance no adverse inference could lllO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Mahajan/. to the date that the letter bears. It is be drawn as clear that no forger would have in such a clumsy manner corrected 1947 "7" intact and thus leave evidence of original figure its suspicious character writ large on face. There was no hurry about it, and a second letter without the alteration could easily have been typed. into 1946 so as to leave that was typewriter Next it was argued that the letter was not typed on those davs, viz., the office type- article B, and that it had been typed on writer article A which did not reach Nagpur till 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 Jndian 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. 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 learned Sessions Judge used this evide1ice to arrive at the finding that, letter wa~ typed on article A which had not as the reached Nagpur of December, 1946, obviously the letter was antedated. Their conclusion based on to be ignored. inadmissible evidence has trial magistrate and It is curious therefore It was further held that the evidence of experts was the accused record- 342. The accused Patel, when following the statements of letter, made corroborated by ed under section questioned statement: : i "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 Cor- respondence Files Exhibit P-34 and Exhibit P-35 just 1952 Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Mahajan/. r S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1111 as there is no copy in these files of my tender Ex- hibit P-3A.......... In the month of September, October several machines parties in our were brought for office till the typewriter article A was purchased by National Industrial Alcohol Ltd. Company." and November, 1946, trial from various Judge used part of the If the evidence of the experts is elimimated, there is no material for holding that Exhibit P-24 was on article A. The trial magistrate and learned statement of the Sessions 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 state- It is ment of the accused was wholly unwarranted. settled law a person whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split up and part of it used against him. An admis- sion must be used either as a whole or not at all. If is used as a whole, it the statement of completely demolishes the prosecution case and, if it is not used at all, then there rema.ins no material on the record from which any inference could be drawn that the letter was not written on the date it bears. that an admission made the accused to prove For the reasons given above we hold that there is no evidence whatsoever on the record ttl1at being letter Exhibit P-24 was antedated and the charge in respect of forgery of this letter also so, this letter cannot be said to fails. Read as a whole, 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. letter read as a whole is an innocuous document and dominant purpose and to safeguard to protect him against interests of accused Patel and any underhand or unfair act of his contractors. We cannot infer any intent to defraud or any intention to injure Amarnath, though in order to protect himself accused Patel maL!c certain allegations against him. We therefore set aside the conviction of both the appeal- lants under the third charge and acquit them. intent was ri!val The 1952 Hanumant v. ·T lie State of Madhya Pradesh. Mahaian /. 1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1952] The result is that the consolidated appeal is allowed, judgments of all the three courts below are aside and the appellants are acquitted. Appellants acquitted. Agent for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1951 : Ganpat Rai. Agent for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1951 : Rajinder Narain. Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta. 1952 Oct. 16. ' STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND OTHERS v. THE BOMBAY CO. LTD. STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND ANOTHER v. MICHAEL FREDERICK AND BROS. STATE OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND ANOTHER v. STAGBROOK RUBBER AND TEA ESTATES LTD. INDIA, UNION OF STATil OF STATE OF PUNJAB, MADRAS, STATil OF MYSORE, STATE OF 0RISSA AND STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH-Interveners. STATil OF HYDERABAD, STATE OF BOMBAY, [PATANJALI SAsrn1 C.J., MuKHERJEA, DAs, VIVIAN BosE and Gnm.AM HASAN JJ.] Constitution of India, Article 286( I) ( b )-Sales tax-Exemp. tion of sales in the course of export or import-Meant"ng of "in the course of"-..'iolcs tvhel'e property passes and sale is co1nplete before r ' \ L