N.H. Bhagwati, J. - (1.) The Appellant No. 1 was the Minister of Industries and the Appellant No. 2 was the Secretary to the Government in the Commerce and Industries Department of the State of Vindhya Pradesh. The Appellant No. 1 was charged with having committed offences under Ss. 120-B, 161, 465 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code and the Appellant No. 2 under Ss. 120-B and 161 of the Indian Penal Code as adopted by the Vindhya Pradesh Ordinance No. 48 of 1949. They were tried in the Court of the Special Judge at Rewa under the Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Ordinance No. I.VI of 1949 and the special Judge acquitted both of them. The State of Vindhya Pradesh took an appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa. The Judicial Commissioner reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge and convicted both the Appellants of the several offences with which they were charged. The Judicial Commissioner awarded to the Appellant No. 1 a sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default rigorous imprisonment of 9 months under S. 120-B, Penal Code and a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment under S. 161, Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently. He imposed no sentence upon the Appellant No. 1 under Ss. 465 and 466, Penal Code. He awarded to the Appellant No. 2 a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for nine months under Section 120-B, Penal Code. He did not award any separate sentence to Appellant No. 2 under S. 161, Penal Code. On an application made to the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court the Judicial Commissioner granted the Appellants leave to appeal under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution in regard to the four points of law raised in the case before him.
(2.) The constitutional points involved in the appeal came up for hearing before the Constitution Bench of this Court and were dealt with by the judgment of this Court delivered on22-5-1953. The Constitution Bench held that the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal by the Special Judge was competent and that there was no infringement of the fundamental rights of the Appellants under Arts. 14 and 20 of the Constitution Vide - Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of V. P., AIR 1953 SC 394 (A). The appeal was accordingly directed to be posted for consideration whether it was to be heard on the merits. An application was thereafter made by the Appellants to this Court for leave to urge additional grounds and this Court on 2-10-1953 made an order that the appeal should be heard on merits. The appeal has accordingly come up for hearing and final disposal before us.
(3.) The case for the prosecution was as follows. By an agreement executed on 1-8-1936 between the Panna Darbar of the one part and the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate represented by Sir Chinubhai Madholal and Hiralala Motilal Shah of the other part, the Panna Durbar granted to the Syndicate a lease to carry on diamond mining operations for a period of 15 years. The period of the lease was to expire on 30-10-1951 but there was an option reserved to the lesee to have a renewal of the lease for a further period of 15 years from the date of such expiration. There were disputes between the Syndicate on the one hand and the Panna Durbar on the other and by his order dated 31-10-1946 the Political Minister of Panna stopped the mining operations of the Syndicate. The State of Panna became integrated in the Unit of Vindhya Pradesh in July 1948 and the administration of Panna came under the control and superintendence of the Government of Vindhya Pradesh with its seat at Rewa under his Highness the Maharaja of Rewa as Rajpramukh and the Appellant No. 1 became the Minister in charge of the Industries Department in the Cabinet which was formed by the Rajpramukh. The Appellant No. 2 held the post of Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department and was working under the Appellant No. 1. On 1-9-1948 the Syndicate appointed one Pannalal as Field Manager to get the said order of the Panna Durbar stopping the working of the mines rescinded. Pannalal made several applications for procuring the cancellation of the said order and on 13-1-1949 and 26-1-1949 Pannalal made two application and handed them over personally to the Appellant No. 1 requesting for the resumption of the mining operations and was asked to come in February for the purpose. The Appellant No. 1 consulted the legal advisers of the State of a questionnaire was framed which was to be addressed to the Syndicate for its answers. When Pannalal went to Rewa the questionnaire was handed over to him on 9-2-1949 for being sent of Sir Chinubhai. Sir Chinubhai sent the replies to the said questionnaire along with a covering letter dated 18-2-1949 wherein he expressed a desire to meet the Appellant No. 1 for personal discussion in regard to the settlement of the matter of the resumption of the mining operations etc. In reply to the telegrams sent by Sir Chinubhai on 19-2-1949, the P. A. to Appellant No. 1 intimated to Sir Chinubhai that he could go to Rewa and see the Appellant No. 1 on 7-3-1949. As Sir Chinubhai was ill he deputed his Personal Assistant, Nagindas Mehta to go to Rewa and see the Appellant No. 1 on his behalf. Nagindas arrived at Rewa on the evening of 6-3-1949. The Appellant No. 1 had gone out of Rewa and Nagindas had to wait. He saw the Appellant No. 1 on the morning of 8-3-1949 but was asked to see the Appellant No. 2. The Appellant No. 2 saw Nagindas at the Guest House where he had put up and informed Nagindas that a third party was offering Rs. 50,000/- for the mining rights Nagindas told the Appellant No. 2 that the Syndicate was a limited concern and could not afford to pay so much money but if the amount was reduced they would make an effort to pay the sum. The Appellant No. 2 then told Nagindas that he would talk over the matter with the Appellant No. 1 and let him know. The same day in the afternoon the Appellant No. 2 saw Nagindas at the Guest House and informed him that as the syndicate was working for the last so many years the Appellant No. 1 was prepared to reduce the amount to about Rs. 25,000/-. Nagindas told the Appellant No. 2 that he would talk over the matter with Sir Chinubhai in Bombay and would let him know about it. Nagindas then left for Bombay but he reached Bombay on 29-3-1949 having been detained on the way for some other business of his. He saw Sir Chinubhai in Bombay and reported to him what had happened at Rewa and gave him to understand that resumption orders would not be passed unless a bribe of Rs. 25,000/- was paid. Sir Chinubhai did not approve of the idea of giving a bribe and suggested that Nagindas should lay a trap for catching the Appellant No. 1 Nagindas sent a telegram 29-3-1949 agreeing to go to Rewa in the week thereafter for completion. On receipt of that telegram, the Appellant No. 2 in the absence of Appellant No. 1 who was on tour sent a telegram on 1-4-1949 to Sir Chinubhai pressing him to come the same week as his presence was essential to complete the matter which had been already delayed. On 4-4-1949 Pannalal was informed by the Appellant No. 2 that the Appellant No. 1 was leaving for Delhi that day and that he should go to Bombay and send Sir Chinubhai to Delhi to meet the Appellant No. 1 in the Constitution House where he would be staying. He also gave a letter to Pannalal to the same effect. Appellant No. 1 left for Delhi on 4-4-1949 with the files of the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate and reached Delhi on 5-4-1949. On 6-4-1949 the Appellant No. 1 sent a telegram through his P. A. Mukherji to Sir Chinubhai at Bombay asking him to meet the Appellant No. 1 on 7th, 8th or 9th April 1949 at 31 Constitution House for final talks regarding the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate. On receipt of the said telegram, Sir Chinubhai sent a telegram in reply stating that his Personal Assistant, Nagindas and Pannalal were reaching Delhi on 9-4-1949. Nagindas reached Delhi on 8-4-1949 and put up at the Maidens Hotel and Pannalal reached Delhi on 10-4-1949 and put up at the Regal Hotel. On 9-4-1949 Nagindas informed the Appellant No. 1 on the telephone about his arrival at Delhi and an appointment was fixed for 10-30 A. M. on 10-4-1949. Nagindas contacted Shri Bambawala, the Inspector-General of Police, of the Special Police Establishment on the morning of 10-4-1949 before coming to meet the Appellant No. 1 and told him how the Appellant No. 1 was coercing him to pay a bribe. Shri Bambarwala referred Nagindas to Pandit Dhanraj, Super-intendent, Special Police Establishment and Nagindas told him the whole story of his harassment by the Appellant No. 1 and it was then decided to lay a trap for Appellant No. 1. Nagindas informed Pandit Dhanraj that he would meet the Appellant No. 1 at about 11 A. M. and then report their talk to him in the afternoon. Nagindas then saw the Appellant No. 1 at the Constitution House at the appointed time and at this meeting the Appellant No. 1 demanded from Nagindas a sum of Rs. 25,000 as a bribe for allowing the resumption of the mining operations and made it quite clear that he would not accept anything less than Rs. 25,000. As Nagindas had not received the moneys from Bombay, the following day, i.e. 11-4-1949 at 3 P. M. was fixed for the next meeting. Nagindas thereafter informed Pandit Dhanraj as to what had taken place at the aforesaid meeting between him and the Appellant No. 1. Nagindas went to the Constitution House and saw the Appellant No. 1 at about 3 P. M. on 11-4-949. Pannalal was already there. Nagindas and the Appellant No. 1 went into the bedroom where Nagindas requested the Appellant No. 1 to extend the period of the lease for 10 years so that the Syndicate might be compensated for the loss sustained by the stoppage of the mining operations. The Appellant No. 1 thereupon asked Nagindas to submit a written application in Hindi and as Nagindas did not know it he called Pannalal into the bedroom and asked him to write out an application to that effect. The Appellant No. 1 after making sure from Pannalal that Pannalal was present at Rewa on the 1st April 1949 asked Pannalal to put the date on the said application as 1-4-1949. The Appellant No. 1 made an endorsement at the foot of the said application and dated it as of 1-4-1949. It was arranged that Nagindas should see the Appellant No. 1 at 9 P. M. that day, that Nagindas should pay Rs. 25,000 to the Appellant No. 1 at that time and the Appellant No. 1 would deliver the resumption order to Nagindas on payment of the said sum of Rs. 25000. Nagindas then left the Constitution House and reported to Pandit Dhanraj what had transpired between him and the Appellant No. 1. He further told Pandit Dhanraj that he had not received any moneys upto that time. Pannalal was asked to proceed to the Constitution House in advance and inform the Appellant No. 1 that Nagindas would be coming along at P. M. that night. Nagindas and Pandit Dhanraj then proceeded to the house of Shri Shanti Lal Ahuja, Additional District Magistrate. Pandit Dhanraj made arrangements for a raiding party. Nagindas's statement was recorded on oath and a search of his person was made and he was then given three bundles containing 250 Government Currency Notes of Rs. 100 and a memorandum of the same also prepared. After these formalities were gone through Pundit Dhanraj, Nagindas and the Additional District Magistrate along with the police party left for the Constitution House. It was arranged that Pannalal should be sent out by Nagindas after the completion of the transaction, on some pretext or other to the taxi waiting outside and that this would serve at a signal for the raiding party which would rush into the room No. 31 Constitution House which was occupied by the Appellant No. 1. Nagindas then went inside the suite of rooms occupied by the Appellant No. 1 and the Appellant No. 1 took him to his bedroom and closed the door which connected the bedroom with the sitting room where Pannalal was already waiting. After this the Appellant No. 1 handed over the resumption order to Nagindas and on reading the same Nagindas found that the extention given was only for 4 years and he asked the Appellant No. 1 why this was so when the Appellant No. 1 had promised before to give an extension for 10 years. On this the Appellant No. 1 told Nagindas that he should put up another application after a few months and then the Appellant No. 1 would extend the period. Appellant No. I then signed the resumption order and put down the date thereunder as 2-4-1949. As soon as the signed order was handed over to him, Nagindas handed over to the Appellant No. 1 the Government currency notes of the value of Rs. 25,000 which had been given to him previously by the Additional District Magistrate. Nagindas then asked or an extra copy of the said order and the same was accordingly given to him after being dated and initialled by the Appellant No. 1. The Appellant No. 1 took the government currency notes and put them in the upper drawer of the dressing table in the bedroom. After the transaction was thus completed Nagindas shouted to Pannalal to go to the taxi and bring his cigarette case. Pannalal went out to the taxi and on receipt of this signal, the Additional District Magistrate and Pandit Dhanraj rushed into the sitting room along with the other members of the raiding party. The Appellant No. 1 met the raiding party at the communicating door between the two rooms. After the Additional District Magistrate and Pandit Dhanraj had disclosed their identity Appellant No. 1 was asked by Pandit Dhanraj whether he had received any money as a bribe to which the Appellant No. 1 replied in the negative. Pandit Dhanraj then told Appellant No. 1 that he should produce the money which he had received, otherwise he would be forced to search the room. On this Appellant No. 1 went to the said dressing table, opened the top drawer and brought out the three bundles of Government currency notes given to him by Nagindas and handed them over to Pandit Dhanraj. On inquiry by the Additional District Magistrate as to how he had come into possession of the said notes, the Appellant No. 1 stated that he had brought Rs. 40,000 from his home out of which Rs. 15,000 had been sent by him in the purchase of a motor car and the remaining sum was with him which was required by him to purchase some ornaments in connection with the marriage of his daughter. In this meanwhile two respectable witnesses, Shri Gadkari, who was a member of the Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Works, Mines and Power, Government of India and Shri Perulakar, who was the Minister for Agriculture and Labour, Madhya Bharat, were brought to the bedroom of the Appellant No. 1 by the police. The Appellant No. 1 repeated the said statement and gave the same explanation before these two witnesses which he had given and made before the Additional District Magistrate and Pandit Dhanraj a little while before. Nagindas was then searched in the presence of these two witnesses and the two copies of the order which had been given to him by Appellant No. 1 were recovered from his person. Two other copies of the said order and the application and the file of the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate were recovered from the search of the upper drawer of the dressing table in the bedroom of Appellant No. 1. Appellant No. I also produced a receipt in support of his story of the purchase of the car. The relevant memos of the search were prepared and also a list of the numbers of the Government currency notes of Rs. 25,000 which had been produced by the Appellant No. 1. This list was compared and checked by the said witness Gadkari and Perulakar with the numbers of notes and also with those appearing in the list which was in the possession of the additional District Magistrate and which was shown to the said witnesses. They found that the numbers in said two lists tallied in all respects. After the completion of the list the Additional District Magistrate confronted Appellant No. 1 with the documents which were produced before him by Nagindas and also the list of notes and asked Appellant No. 1 if he had any explanation to offer. The Appellant No. I was confused and could give no explanation. On further enquiry whether the Appellant No. I had any other money with him, he opened an iron confidential box a key of which was in his possession and brought out a sum of Rs. 132/- which was not taken charge of as the same had no concern with the case. Thereafter Appellant No. I was put under arrest and was subsequently released on bail.;