1966 (2) TMI 89 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the appeal.
2. Allegation of bribery in the agreement for the sale of shares.
3. Standard of proof for bribery in civil cases.
4. Admissibility of Hiralal's evidence.
5. Determination of plaintiff's involvement in the alleged bribery.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of the Appeal:
The appeal was initially challenged on the grounds of competency by the defendants-respondents. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the appeal was not competent. However, the Supreme Court, upon appeal, ruled that the appeal was indeed competent and remitted the case back to the High Court for a decision on the merits.

2. Allegation of Bribery in the Agreement for the Sale of Shares:
The primary issue in the suit was whether the agreement to sell the two and a half annas share was a bribe offered by the deceased Seth Govindram to the plaintiff to secure a favorable report from the plaintiff, who was a member of the Enquiry Committee. Both the Division Bench and the Full Bench concluded that the offer of the shares was indeed a bribe. They inferred that Govindram's offer was intended to induce the plaintiff to report favorably on his management of the Mills.

3. Standard of Proof for Bribery in Civil Cases:
The appellant's counsel argued that the standard of proof for bribery in civil cases should be the same as in criminal cases, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Supreme Court held that the Indian Evidence Act applies the same standard of proof in all civil cases, which is based on the balance of probabilities. The Court emphasized that while the presumption of honesty or innocence should be considered, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not applicable in civil cases.

4. Admissibility of Hiralal's Evidence:
The appellant contended that Hiralal's evidence was inadmissible because it had not been put to the plaintiff. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Full Bench did not base its findings on Hiralal's evidence, making this point moot.

5. Determination of Plaintiff's Involvement in the Alleged Bribery:
The appellant argued that there was no proof that the plaintiff was aware of Govindram's intention to bribe him. The Supreme Court held that the fact of the plaintiff's involvement in the bribery should be judged on the balance of probabilities. The Court found no misdirection by the Full Bench in concluding that the plaintiff was indeed a party to the bribery.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the Full Bench. The Court concluded that the agreement to sell the shares was a bribe intended to secure a favorable report from the plaintiff and that the standard of proof in civil cases does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed with costs.