1954 (4) TMI 68 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conspiracy to cheat the Government.
2. Bribery.
3. Compliance with Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conspiracy to Cheat the Government:
The appellants were charged with conspiracy to cheat the Government by inflating the amount due for construction work. The prosecution alleged that the appellant S. K. Dutt, along with others, conspired to claim payment for roads that were purportedly constructed but were actually built by the military. The High Court of Calcutta convicted the appellants of conspiracy, reversing the Special Tribunal's acquittal on this charge. However, the Federal Court set aside the convictions due to procedural irregularities, specifically the refusal to issue process for defense witnesses, which was in contravention of Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Bribery:
The appellants were also charged with bribery, with allegations that S. K. Dutt paid bribes to R. W. Mathams and P. C. Ghose to pass inflated bills. The Special Tribunal initially convicted the appellants on this charge, and the High Court of Calcutta upheld these convictions. The Federal Court, however, found that the appellants were not given a fair opportunity to present their defense witnesses, which could have potentially rebutted the bribery charges. The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that the trial was unfair and the convictions could not stand.

3. Compliance with Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
A significant issue was the non-compliance with Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates the issuance of process for defense witnesses unless specific reasons are recorded. The Federal Court observed that the Tribunal's refusal to issue process for witnesses listed by the defense was illegal and amounted to a serious procedural irregularity. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the appellants were deprived of a fair trial as they were not given a reasonable opportunity to examine their witnesses, many of whom could not be traced due to the passage of time and the partition of India.

4. Necessity of Sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
In the appeal of R. W. Mathams, the question arose whether the prosecution was bad for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Privy Council had initially limited the appeal to this question but later allowed the appellant to also raise the issue of non-compliance with Section 257. The Supreme Court held that, based on precedents, sanction under Section 197 was not necessary for instituting proceedings on charges of conspiracy and bribery. However, the conviction was set aside due to the procedural irregularity under Section 257.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, acquitting the appellants on the grounds that they were denied a fair trial due to the Tribunal's refusal to issue process for defense witnesses, which was a contravention of Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The necessity of sanction under Section 197 was answered in the negative, aligning with established judicial precedents.