- (1.) These two are appeals by special leave. The two appellants hearing along with two others were put up for trial before the Special Judge of the Special Court (Alipur), Calcutta, in respect of three charges, the first against all the four accused in respect of an offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 420, I. P. C. and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the second as against Kedar Nath Bajoria, appellant in Cr. A. 84 of 1952 and his son Madan Lal Bajoria, in respect of an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the third against Hari Ram Vaid, appellant in Cr. A. 85 of 1952, and his assistant, Inder Said Bakshi, in respect of an offence under section 5(2) read with clause (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Kedar Nath Bajoria and Hari Ram Vaid were both convicted in respect of the charge under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Kedar Nath Bajoria was, in addition, convicted in respect of the charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, while Hari Ram Vaid was, also, convicted in respect of the charge under section 5(2) read with clause (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. They were both sentenced to imprisonment and fine. The other two, namely, Madan Lal Bajoria and Inder Sain Bakshi, were acquitted. As against the judgment of the trial Court there were two appeals, one by each, to the High Court. The convictions and sentences were affirmed in a common judgment of the High Court. Against the judgment of the High Court special leave was granted by this Court on two applications. These two appeals first came up for hearing before a Constitution Bench of this Court with reference to certain objections raised under Article 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution. The objection under Article 14 was decided against the appellants by judgment dated the 22nd May, 1953. The objection under Article 20(1) which related only to the quantum of fine imposed on the appellant Kedar Nath Bajoria was allowed but did not affect his conviction. The judgment has been reported in - 'Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal'. AIR 1953 SC 404 (A). These appeals were accordingly directed to be heard on the merits and have come before us.
(2.) The appellant, Kedar Nath Bajoria and his son Madna Lal Bajoria were the owners of the firm, Kedar Nath Mohanlal. The firm was the Managing Agent of Shiva Jute Press Ltd., Cossipore, Calcutta. A number of godowns belonging to the Shiv Jute Press were requisitioned by the Government on various dates between March and November 1943 for military purposes. These included the roofs of godowns Nos. 19 and 20 (excluding the godowns underneath). The roofs formed one continuous space and were known as roof No. 20 of the Press. The said roof was requisitioned on the 6th March, 1943, and was under military occupation for over two years and a half. Possession of the roof was ultimately given up by the military on the 8th December, 1945. The charges against the appellants arise out of claims for compensation made by the firm Kedar Nath Mohanlal in respect of damage said to have been occasioned to the roof by misuse thereof by the military during their occupation, and also to the stock of jute belonging to the Press stored in the godown underneath consequent on leakage of water through the damaged roof during the rains. Two claims were successively put forward (1) in respect of damage to the roof, and (2) in respect of damage to the judge, the first in January, 1947, and the second in August, 1947. The appellant Hari Ram Vaid who took charges as the area Lands and Hirings Disposals Officer in September, 1946, and continued as such at the time when these claims were made and scrutinised had the duty of examining them and making his recommendations thereon to the higher authorities. In respect of the first, the claim was for Rs. 61,139/- and he recommended the payment of a sum Rs. 47,550/-. This was ultimately sanctioned by the higher authorities and drawn by the appellant Kedar Nath Bajoria on the 19th May, 1946, from the Government. In respect of the second, the claim was for Rs. 1,62,175/- and the appellant Hari Ram Vaid recommended a payment of Rs. 1,28,125/-. While this second claim was still under scrutiny, the services of the appellant Vaid were terminated in May, 1948. His successor, P. W. 4, suspected that not only was this claim fraudulent, but that the previous claim and payment of Rs. 47,550/- in respect of the repair to the roof were also fraudulent. Investigation followed, which resulted in these proceedings out of which the present appeals arise.
(3.) In support of the prosecution case, a large volume of correspondence and other documents, have been filed and 15 witnesses have been examined. On behalf of the defence, some documents have been filed, but no witnesses has been examined. The case of the prosecution relating to cheating, criminal misconduct and criminal conspiracy, is sought to be made out not on any direct evidence but, as noticed by the High Court in its judgment, entirely from circumstances emerging out of the evidence in the case. In order to appreciate the circumstances relied on by the prosecution, it is necessary to have an idea of the evidence in its broad outlines.;