Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The appellant Hari Ram Vaid who took charge 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 of Rs. 47,550/-. This was ultimately sanctioned by the higher authorities and drawn by the appellant Kedar Nath Bajoria on the 19th May, 1947, 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.

W. E. C. Pettman, Lt.-Col. R. E. A. D. Lands, Hirings and Disposals, (Calcutta area)".

What has been set out above is the summary of the correspondence which bears on the claim for compensation in respect of the alleged damages to the roof and incidentally also on the damage to jute.

6. It may be observed that Ex. 23 dated the 14th January, 1947, coupled with the statement in Ex. 26 shows that the substantial items out of the claim of Rs. 61,139 are two, viz. (1) repair in respect of damage to roof, Rs. 39,000 and (2) two months loss of rent during the period of repairs, Rs. 17,240. The details of the repairs shown in the statement, Ex. 26, indicate that compensation was claimed on the basis of rebuilding the roof. This is also the basis of the recommendation of Vaid to his higher authorities as appears from para. 6 of Ex. 28. It has to be noticed that in para. 2, he asserted that the roof had collapsed. The letter from the firm dated the 14th January, 1947, averred that the roof was badly damaged, and that after restoration of the property, some urgent and necessary repairs had to be carried on by the firm which are still apparent for verification, that in respect of such repairs a sum of Rs. 21,500 had already been spent and a further sum of Rs. 18,700 had still to be incurred, and that relevant documents were enclosed. Now the gravamen of the prosecution case is that the allegations of damage to the roof by misuse of the military as well as the allegation of collapse thereof are absolutely false, fraudulent and collusive and that there has been deliberate misrepresentation in this behalf, while it is the defence case that these allegations are substantially true and that there is no question of any misrepresentation, fraud or collusion.

7. In the view of the High Court, the evidence did not disclose that any damage to the roof worth the name was caused by the occupying military and the subsequent conduct of both the appellants was such as to lead to a reasonable and necessary inference that the claim in this respect was fraudulent and the result of a conspiracy.

It is remarkable that in this case there is no specific evidence, in the nature of contemporaneous reports or the like as to the condition of the roof (1) when it was taken over by the military authorities from the firm in 1943; and (2) when it was handed back by them to the firm in 1945; nor is there any direct and stacking the materials kind of use to which it was being put during this period. The conclusions in this behalf have, therefore, to be necessarily formed with reference to the assertions and counter-assertions in the correspondence already noticed and the subsequent con duct of the parties. The offences charged have, therefore, to be brought home to the appellants in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in -- 'Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh', (B), as applicable to such cases.

Thus the two circumstances above noticed are definite and clinching circumstances as against the appellants, which lead to a reasonable and necessary conclusion that the claim put forward by the appellant, Kedar Nath Bajoria for compensation in respect of the alleged damage to the jute has been deliberately and fraudulently bolstered up, and was the result of a mutual arrangement and that the inter-office note, Ex. 1, put up by Vaid to Balakrishnan, which immediately aroused suspicion as being in the nature of a special pleading, was also the outcome of this arrangement. In the circumstances above noticed and subject to one lacuna to be presently stated, it appears to us that the Courts below were fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the claim in respect of the damage to the jute was a fraudulent one, which was put forward by the appellant Kedar Nath Bajoria and recommended by the appellant Vaid, as a result of a mutual arrangement between them.