LexKISHAN NARAIN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A B c D E F KISHAN NARAIN ~. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA September 7, 1973 (H. R. KHANNA ANI> A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 605 E>-idttice Act, 1812 (1 of 1872), ss. 124 and 125-Privilege-Noiings on confide1Jtial file which have no bearing on the guilt or i11noce11ce of the accused -If could be brought on the record by the High dourt. The appellant was convicted under s. 165-A. I.P.C. for offer_ing a bribe to a Custcnts appraiser and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. On appeal the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sent~nce of imprisonment to six months. Before the Special Judge the appellant had filed applications for the produc·_ ti on of three document'S viz. : ( i) the application made by S, the informer, for· rewards for his services as an informer; (ii) receipts signed by S for the amourils he received as n:ward and (iii) the notings made. by the appraiser on the Cent- ral Intelligence Unit file regarding the application by S for reward. The De· partment · objected to their prodqction on the ground that the appraiser could not be compelled to say or divulge any information as to ti!~ commission of any offence against the public revenue and that the documents were made in official confidence and pub.lie interest would suffer from disclosure of any of the document< on the file. The Special Judge dismissed the applications. When tho appeal was pending, the High Court passed an order bringing on record ce.rtain portions from the file of the Central Intelligence Unit. Disn1issing the appeal to this Court, HELD : ( i) The order of the High Court permitting certain portions of the confidential file to be brought on record was not correct. The High Court seemed to have been more concerned with the provisions of s. 125 than with s. 124 of the Evidence Act. While portions brought on record might not con- travene the provisions of s. 125 there was no doubt that they contravene s. 124. The no1ings on the file were made in official confidence. [608-H] (ii) The fa:ct that S had acted as an informer and applied for rewards f9r his services did not in any way affect the merits of the case. The Crucial ques- tion was whether the apoellant did make an offer of bribe ·to the appraiser and did give it to him. Documents in respect of which privilege was claimed did n~t impinge on the question of guilt or innocence of the ac.:lBed. [609-D] In the circum.o;;tances of this case there was no harassment of the appellant and no' case ha<l been made out for re~ucing the sentence. Ran1jo11r11n Singh v. State of Bihar, A. I. R. 19·55 S. C. 643, held inappli- cable. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Apeal No. 14 of H 1970. Appeal by special leave from the 24/26-9-1969 of the Bombay High No. 1825 of 1965. judgment Court in and order dated Criminal Appeal H. L~ Sibal, S. C. Sibal, Harjinder Singh and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant. M. C. Bhandare, M. N. Shroff and Z. A. Kluilidi, for the respon- dent. 13-L382Sup. CI/74 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1974 J 1 S.C.R. The Juugment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. The appellant was convicted by the Special fodge of Bombay under s. 165-A I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment foe one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. On appeal the High Court of Bombay upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months. The appellant is a partner of a firm owning the New India Knitting Mills in Amritsar. It has a sister concern called J. D. Woollen and Silk Mills, which is owned by a partnership firm of which the appcJ!ant's minor son is a partner. On 10-10-1963 the J. D. Mills was given an import licence for Rs. 23,480/- for spare parts for Warp Knit- ting Machine from Germany. Towards a part of that import licence goods valued at Rs. 11,699/· arrived in Bombay on 16.3.1964. The J·D. Mills arranged for clearance of this consignment by the New Suraj Trausit Company having its head QJlice in Amritsar and a branch in Bombay. One Hiro Shahani, who became an approver in this case, was an employee of the clearing agents. Bakubhai Amba- Ja!,& Co. were the representatives in India of the machinery manu- !l'acturing company.1 It appears that in July 1963 there was an anonymous petition against the two mills and on 21.11.1963 au order was made by th~ Principal Appraiser of the Special Investigation Branch of the Customs that a careful watch should be kept over
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.