Dua, J. - (1.) These two appeals by the State of Assam (Crl. A. No. 92 of 1970 State of Assam v. Krishna Rao and Cr. A. No. 93 of 1970 State of Assam v. M. D. Bajid) under Art. 136 of the Constitution are directed against the common judgment of the Assam and Nagaland High Court dated April 30, 1969 allowing two appeals by the two respondents (Cr. A. 61 of 1968 M. D. Bajid v. State of Assam and Cr. A. 62 of 1968 V. Krishna Rao v. The State of Assam) against two separate judgments of the Special Judge, Gauhati dated June 12, 1968 in two separate trials. Though the High Court recorded a common judgment, it dealt with the two cases separately. We also propose to dispose of both the appeals by the common judgment.
(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the two cases, the essential features of which are largely common, may now be stated. Accused Krishna Rao was a Garrison Engineer, M. E. S. at Jorhat and M. D. Bajid (appellant in the other case) was the Assistant Garrison Engineer under him. During the term of office of these two officers, it is alleged that Messrs Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works, Calcutta were contractors under the M.E.S., Jorhat for supplying fabricated building materials and for raising structures with that material at the sites selected by the M. E. S. The Chief Engineer, Eastern Command, it is not disputed, is the person who entered into the contract and after the contract was accepted the accused Krishna Rao in the capacity of Garrison Engineer was in overall charge of the execution of that contract and M. D. Bajid was his Assistant. According to the terms of the contract the contractor was entitled to receive 75% of the value of the goods supplied through running account bills. These payments had to be vetted in the first instance by Bajid as Assistant Garrison Engineer. For the goods already supplied two running bills were submitted and the payments under those bills were made upto May 21, 1964. According to the prosecution case Krishna Rao all the time kept harassing the contractor with the motive of getting bribe and sometimes he expressed to the contractor's agent his desire in this respect. Even in regard to the two bills which were duly paid some defects were sought to be created by Krishna Rao after passing them. The third bill duly submitted was delayed on various objections with the object of extracting a bribe and ultimately on August 12, 1964 Krishna Rao demanded a bribe from C. L. Noronha, the Chief Administrative Officer, who was also attorney of the contractor company. Noronha informed the police who arranged a trap with the result that on August 13, 1964 first Krishna Rao was caught accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000 from Noronha and thereafter Bajid was caught when he received Rupees 5,000 as bribe from the same individual in a similar manner. The prosecution story is narraged by C. L. Noronha (P. W. 3), the man directly concerned with the matter, S. P. Chaliha (P. W. 1) who was in August, 1964 posted as Income-tax Officer, A Ward at Jorhat. A. C. Barua (P.W. 2), Sub-Divisional Officer, Planning, at Jorhat and K. C. Kapur (P.W. 5), Dy. Superintendent of Police, S.P.E., C.I.A.
(3.) C. L. Noronha (P.W. 3) has stated in his evidence how Krishna Rao, accused, as Garrison Engineer tried to delay the payment of the two R. A. R. (running account receipt) bills of the contractor firm and conveyed to the witness the usual expectation of the staff to get 20% of the bills by way of commission. We do not consider it necessary to go into this evidence in details because, according to the Special Judge trying the accused, there being a solitary statement of P.W. 3 in this respect it was not safe to rely on it without some corroboration assuring its trustworthiness. According to the trial court P.W. 3 claims to have informed his company superiors about the demand of bribe by Shri Krishna Rao on behalf of the M.E.S. staff but none of those superiors appeared as witnesses. The demand and the delay in the payment of R. A. R. bills with the motive of extorting bribe, in the opinion of the Special Judge, was not true beyond reasonable doubt. We would, therefore, concentrate on the prosecution case regarding information of the demand of bribe to the police and the trap for catching the two accused persons.;