R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay & ANR [1986] INSC 86 (17 April 1986)
1986 Latest Caselaw 86 SC

R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay & ANR [1986] INSC 86 (17 April 1986)

BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION: 1986 AIR 2045 1986 SCR (2) 621 1986 SCC (2) 716 1986 SCALE (1)745

CITATOR INFO:

RF 1988 SC1531 (143) RF 1992 SC1701 (9)

ACT:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 245(1) and 246 - Whether a charge should be framed against the accused or not - Test of 'prima facie' case to be applied. Sections 227, 239 and 245 - Comparison between.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 161 and 165 - Scope and difference between - Motive or reward for abuse of office - Relevancy of. Sections 415 and 420 - Ingredients of Cheating explained. Sections 383 and 384 - "extortion" - Ingredients of.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. 4 - Presumption raised under s. 4 is a presumption of law - It will have to be drawn against an accused once acceptance of a valuable thing by him is proved.

HEADNOTE:

The respondent was at the relevant time Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. The appellant lodged a complaint on August 9, 1982 alleging commission of offences by the respondent punishable under ss. 161, 165, 384 and 420 read with s. 120B, Indian Penal Ccie as also s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged in the complaint that the respondent, as the Chief Minister of the State, had created seven Trusts, one of them being Indira Gandhi Pratishthan shown to be a Government Trust and that he extended favours to those who made donations to the said trusts. In all the trusts, except the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan, the respondent, his wife, close relations and friends were associated as trustees.

622 The complaint was registered as Special Case No. 24/82 and was transferred to the High Court of Bombay for trial under an order of this Court dated Feb. 16, 1984. Fifty- seven witnesses for prosecution were examined before the Trial Judge and 43 draft charges were placed for his consideration. The prosecution examined specific witnesses with reference to the allegations supporting the draft charges and documents were also produced to support the allegations. The Trial Judge framed 21 charges against the respondent and discharged him in respect of the remaining 22 charges relating to the offence of cheating, extortion and conspiracy.

The appellant, aggrieved by the order refusing to frame charges on 22 heads by the Trial Judge, filed the present Criminal Appeal by Special Leave.

Allowing the appeal in part, ^

HELD : (By the Court) 1.1 A prima facie case has been established by the prosecution in respect of the allegations for charges under ss. 120B, 161 and 165 and 420, IPC , as also under s. 5(1) read with s. 5(2) of the Act. So far as the three draft charges relating to the offence punishable under s. 384, IPC are concerned, the learned Trial Judge was right in holding that the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case. Therefore, except in regard to the three draft charges under s. 384, IPC , charges in respect of the remaining 19 items shall be framed. The appeal is allowed to that extent. [696 D-F]

1.2 It is still open to the Trial Judge to consider on the material available, if anyone has to be proceeded against as a co-conspirator when the charge of conspiracy punishable under s. 120-B, IPC is framed. Under s. 319 of the Code de novo trial would be necessary, but it is in the discretion of the Trial Court to take a decision as to whether keeping all aspects in view any other person should be brought in as an accused to be tried for any of the offences involved in the case. This is a matter in the discretion of the trial court. [697 F-H] Per Ranganath Misra, J. (Bhagwati, C.J. Concurring)

2.1 The Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates 623 discharge of the accused by the Court of Sessions under s.

227 in a case triable by it, cases instituted upon a police report are covered by s. 239 and cases instituted otherwise than on police report are dealt with in s. 245. The three sections contain somewhat different provisions in regard to discharge of the accused. Under s. 227, the trial Judge is required to discharge the accused if he "considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." Obligation to discharge the accused under s. 239 arises when "the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless." The power to discharge is exercisable under s. 245(i) when "the Magistrate considers for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction." [677 B-E]

2.2 Sections 227 and 239 provide for discharge being ordered before the recording of evidence and the consideration as to whether charge has to be framed or not is required to be made on the basis of the record of the case, including documents and oral hearing of the accused and the prosecution or the police report, the documents sent along with it and examination of the accused and after affording an opportunity to the two parties to be heard. The stage for discharge under s. 245, on the other hand, is reached only after the evidence referred to in s. 244 has been taken. Notwithstanding this difference in the position there is no scope for doubt that the stage at which the Magistrate is required to consider the question of framing of charge under s. 245(1) is a preliminary one and that the test of "prima facie" case has to be applied. In spite of the difference in the language of the three sections, the legal position is that if the Trial Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, charge has to be framed.

Therefore, in order to decide whether the order of discharge should be sustained or set aside, the Supreme Court has to consider whether on the material on record, a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the prosecution. [677 E- G] Mehant Abhey Dass v. S. Gurdial Singh & Ors., A.I.R.

1971 S.C. 834; State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 257; Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal & Anr., [1973] 2 S.C.R. 66; Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 629; Union of India v.

Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 229 and Superintendent and Remembrancer 624 of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunia & Ors., [1979] 4 S.C.C. 274, relied upon.

In the instant case, the oral evidence is backed up by documentary evidence. Some of the relevant documents have interpolations and the inquiry relating to interpolation has not become final. It is indeed difficult at this stage to say that the evidence as a whole is inadequate to establish the prima facie case. The learned Trial Judge, extracted at great length both the oral evidence as also the contents of documents but there was not much of analysis to justify rejection of the material. The learned Trial Judge adopted two different standards in the matter of weighing the same evidence when he agreed to frame 21 charges which were inter-linked and interconnected with the rest of the prosecution story with reference to which the draft charges had been given. If the evidence was accepted for half the number of charges relating to similar offences, there could hardly be any scope to reject the 22 draft charges.

Similarly in regard to the charge of conspiracy the facts were inter-connected and there could be no justification to reject the charge even if the other persons implicated were not before the court. The reasoning given by the learned Trial Judge in support of his order of discharge in regard to the draft charges relating to ss. 161 and 165, IPC and s.

5(2) read with s. 5(1) of the Act, concerning these transactions cannot, therefore, be sustained. [683 D-H; 684 A-B]

3.1 Under s. 245(i) of the Code the requirement is that the evidence must be such which if not rebutted would warrant conviction of the accused. Under the law of evidence the concept of rebuttable presumption is well-known.

Rebuttable presumptions of law are a result of the general experience of a connection between certain facts or things one being usually bound to be companion or effect of the other. The connection, however, in this class is not so intimate or so uniform as to be conclusively presumed to exist in every case; yet, it is so done that the law itself without the aid of a jury infers one fact from the crude existence of the other in the absence of opposing evidence.

In this mode, the law advances the nature and amount of the evidence which is sufficient to establish a prima facie case and throws the burden of proof upon the other party; and if no opposing evidence is offered, the jury are bound to find in favour of the presumption. A contrary verdict 625 might be set aside as being against evidence. The rules in this class of presumptions as in the former have been adopted by common consent from motives of public policy and for the promotion of the general good; yet not as in the former (conclusive proof) class forbidding all further evidence but only dispensing with it till some proof is given on the other side to rebut the presumption raised.

Thus, as men do not generally violate the Penal Code, the law presumes every man to be innocent; but some men do transgress it; and therefore, evidence is received to repel this presumption. [684 B-G]

3.2 The presumption raised under s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a presumption of law which a court is bound to draw, once it is proved that the accused Government servant received or obtained a valuable thing in the circumstances mentioned in that section. [685 E] In the instant case, the learned Trial Judge should have proceeded to scan the evidence keeping in view the concept of rebuttable presumption. He also failed to take note of s. 4 of the Act while dealing with the charges under ss. 161 and 165, IPC as also s. 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.

It is hoped that while dealing with the case after the framing of the charges, the learned Trial Judge will keep this legal position in mind and act accordingly. [685 F-G] The State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer, [1958] S.C.R. 580 and K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 592, referred to.

4.1 The main ingredients of the charge under s. 161, IPC are:

(i) that the accused was a public servant, (ii) that he must be shown to have obtained from any person any gratification other than legal remuneration; and (iii) that the gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. [685 H; 686 A- C] Ordinarily, when the first two ingredients are established by evidence, a rebuttable presumption arises in respect of the third. [686 C] 626

4.2 For an offence under s. 165, IPC, the essential ingredients are:

(i) the accused was a public servant ;

(ii) he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or obtain a valuable thing without consideration or for an inadequate consideration knowing it to be inadequate ; (iii) the person giving the thing must be a person concerned or interested in or related to the person concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by the government servant or having any connection with the official of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate; and (iv) the accused must have knowledge that the person giving the thing is so concerned or interested or related. [686 C-G]

4.3 Section 165 is so worded as to cover cases of corruption which do not come within ss. 161, 162 or 163.

Indisputably the field under s. 165 is wider. If public servants are allowed to accept presents when they are prohibited under a penalty from accepting bribes, they would easily circumvent the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the shape of a present. The difference between the acceptance of a bribe made punishable under s. 161 and 165, IPC is that under the former section the present is taken as a motive or reward for abuse of office; under the latter section the question of motive or reward is wholly immaterial and the acceptance of a valuable thing without consideration or with inadequate consideration from a person who has or is likely to have any business to be transacted, is forbidden because though not taken as a motive or reward for showing any official favour, it is likely to influence the public servant to show official favour to the person giving such valuable thing. [686 G-H; 687 A-C]

4.4 The provisions of ss. 161 and 165 IPC as also s. 5 of the Act are intended to keep the public servant free from corruption and thus ultimately ensure purity in public life.

[687 C] In the instant case, the evidence, therefore, should have been judged keeping these aspects in view. [687 C]

5. The main ingredients of the offence of extortion in s. 383, IPC are : (i) the accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person; (ii) the putting of a person in such fear must be intentional ; (iii) the 627 accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security; and (iv) such inducement must be done dishonestly. [690 E-H] Before a person can be said to put any person to fear of any injury to that person, it must appear that he has held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future. If all that a man does is to promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if money is not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of extortion. [691 A-B] Habibul Razek v. King Emperor, A.I.R. 1924 All 197, relied upon.

In the instant case, there is no evidence at all to show that the managements of the sugar co-operatives had been put in any fear and the contributions had been paid in response to threats. Merely because the respondent was Chief Minister at the relevant time and the sugar co-operatives had some of their grievances pending consideration before the Government and pressure was brought about to make the donations promising consideration of such grievances, possibly by way of recipro-city, there is no justification that the ingredients of the offence of extortion have been made out. The evidence led by the prosecution falls short of the requirements of law in regard to the alleged offence of extortion. [691 C-D]

6.1 Cheating is defined in s. 415 of the IPC and the ingredients for that offence are : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (ii) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (iii) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iv) in cases covered by the second part of the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. [695 C-F]

6.2 Section 415 actually consists of two parts, each part dealing with one way of cheating - 628 (i) Where, by deception practised upon a person the accused dishonestly or fraudulently induced that person to deliver property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property;

(ii) Where, by deception practised upon a person, the accused intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do, if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. [695 G-H; 696 A] In the instant case, the learned Trial Judge failed to analyse the evidence which he had at great length extracted keeping the proper angle of approach in view. Therefore, his conclusion is not made on a proper assessment and is not sustainable. The evidence, oral and documentary, taken together does justify the framing of a charge for the offence under s. 420, IPC . However, the position is a presumptive one open to rebuttal by the respondent. A charge under s. 420, IPC , should, therefore, be framed by the learned Trial Judge against the respondent. [696 B-D]

7. There must be an assumption that whatever is published in the Government owned paper correctly represents the actual state of affairs relating to Governmental business until the same is successfully challenged and the real state of affairs is shown to be different from what is stated in the Government publication. [693 B-C] Harpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [1981] 1 S.C.C. 560, relied upon.

Per Bhagwati, C.J. (Ranganath Misra, J. concurring) 8.1 When the court is considering under s. 245 sub-s.

(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whether any case has been made out against the accused which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, it is difficult to understand as to how the court can brush aside the presumption under s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Sub.s. (1) of s. 4 of that Act provides that where in any trial of an offence 629 punishable under 8. 161 or 165 of the Indian Penal Code or of A an offence referred to in cl. (a) or cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of 8. 5 of that Act it is proved that an accused has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or admitted to obtain for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or admitted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in s. 161 or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. When the Court is called upon to consider whether a charge should be framed or not the question to which the Court has to address itself is whether the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is such that, if unrebutted, it would justify the conviction of the accused and the court has, therefore, to examine the evidence as it stands without rebuttal and come to a conclusion whether on the basis of such evidence the court would convict the accused and where the offence charged against the accused is under s. 161 or s. 165 or cl. (a) or clause (b) or sub-s.

(1) or 8. 5, the court must necessarily apply the presumption under 8. 4 while considering whether on the basis of the unrebutted evidence which is before it the court would convict the accused. Therefore, even for the purpose of considering whether a charge should be framed or not the presumption under 8. 4 must be taken into account.

[632 A-G]

8.2 Sections 161 and 165 of the IPC have been enacted by the Legislature with a view to eradicating corruption in public life. The court must therefore interpret 8. 165 according to its plain language without in any manner being anxious or astute to narrow down its interpretation. Section 165 must be construed in a manner which would advance the remedy and suppress the mischief which is intended to be curbed. [634 D-E] R.C. Jacob v. Union of India, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 800, relied upon.

8.3 Section 165 is wider than 8. 161 and an act of corruption not falling within s. 161 may yet come within the wide terms of s. 165. What 8. 161 envisages is that any 630 gratification other than legal remuneration should have been accepted or obtained or agreed to be accepted or attempted to be obtained by the accused for himself or for any other person as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, while s. 165 does not require taking of gratification as a motive or reward for any specific official action, favour or service but strikes at obtaining by a public servant of any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been or to be or likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate or from whom any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned. Whereas under s. 161 it is necessary to establish that the taking of gratification must be connected with any specific official action, favour or service by way of motive or reward, no such connection is necessary to be proved in order to bring home an offence under s. 165 and all that is necessary to establish is that a valuable thing is accepted or obtained or agreed to be accepted or attempted to be obtained by a public servant from any person whom he knows to have been or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant or having any connection with the official function of such public servant and such valuable thing has been accepted or obtained without consideration or for a consideration which such public servant knows to be inadequate. [634 F-H; 635 A- E] The reach of s. 165 is definitely wider than that of s.

161. Moreover, it is clear from illustration (c) to s. 165 that money or currency is regarded by the Legislature as a valuable thing and if it is accepted or obtained by a public servant without consideration or for inadequate consideration in the circumstances set out in s. 165, such public servant would be guilty of an offence under that section. [635 E-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 1985.

631 From the Judgment and Order dated 23/24/29/30th April, 1985 of the Bombay High Court in Special Case No. 24 of 1982.

Ram Jethmalani, M.V. Katarke, Jai Singhani, Mahesh Jethmalani, K.N. Ma Madhusoodhanan Satish Maneshinde and Ms.Rani Jethmalani for the Appellants L.N. Sinha, P.P. Rao, S.B. Bhasme, R.D. Ovalekar, D.R. Gadgil, Miteen V. Pradhan, Rajendra S. Desai, V.M. Kanade, Mahesh Rajedhyaksha, P.P. Singh, A.S. Bhasme, A.M Khanwilkar and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.

The following Judgments of the Court were delivered C BHAGWATI, C.J. I agree with the judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother Ranga Nath Misra, but there are some two or three charges in regard to which I should like to make more detailed observations since they have not been dealt fully by my learned brother and he has left it to me to consider them in some detail. Since the genesis of this appeal has been set out by my learned brother at length I do not propose to repeat what has been so ably said by him and I will confine myself only to the facts relating to the charges which are going to be dealt with by me But I may be permitted to say a few words in regard to two points which have been discussed by my learned brother in his judgment since they are of some importance and can without impropriety bear further discussion.

The first point arises out of a contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') that the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 applies only after a charge is framed against an accused and has no application at the stage when the court is considering the question whether a charge should be framed or not. It is said in geometry that a point has position but no magnitude, but we are constrained to observe that this point raised on behalf of the first respondent has not only no magnitude but has even no position. It is wholly without substance and indeed it is surprising that it should have been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first 632 respondent. When the court is considering under Section 245 sub-section (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whether any case has been made out against the accused which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, it is difficult to understand as to how the court can brush aside the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of that Act provided that where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or of an offence referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 5 of that Act it is proved that an accused has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or admitted to obtain for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or submitted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. When the court is called upon to consider whether a charge should be framed or not the question to which the court has to address itself is whether the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is such that if unrebutted it would justify the conviction of the accused and the Court has, therefore, to examine the evidence as it stands without rebuttal and come to a conclusion whether on the basis of such evidence the court would convict the accused and where the offence charged against the accused is under Section 161 or Section 165 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 the Court must necessarily apply the presumption under Section 4 while considering whether on the basis of the unrebutted evidence which is before it the court would convict the accused. We do not therefore see any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the first respondent and we must proceed to dispose of this appeal on the basis that even for the purpose of considering whether a charge should be framed or not the presumption under Section 4 must be taken into account.

The second point on which considerable controversy was raised before us related to the scope and ambit of Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code. I agree with my learned brother that it may not be desirable at this stage to define the precise 633 ambit and coverage of Section 165 because that is a matter which will have to be considered by the Nigh Court in depth when the case goes back before the High Court and the first respondent is called upon to face his trial on the charges framed against him. But it is necessary to indicate the broad parameters of Section 165 and to emphasize the basic distinction which exists between that Section and Section 161. It may be pointed out straight away that these two sections have been enacted by the Legislature with a view to eradicating corruption in public life. We may usefully quote here the following pertinent observations made by this Court in Re Special Courts Bill which came by way of Presidential Reference and which is reported in 1979 (2) S.C.R. 476 "....As I read it, this measure is the embryonic expression of a necessitous legislative project, which, if full-fledged, will work a relentless break-through towards catching, through the compulsive criminal process, the higher inhabitants of Indian public and political decks, who have in practice, remained 'untouchable' and 'unapproachable' to the rule of law. 'Operation Clean Up' is a 'consummation devoutly to be wished', although naive optimism cannot obfuscate the obnoxious experience that laws made in terrorem against those who belong to the top power bloc prove in action to be paper tigers. The pathology of our public law, with its class slant, is that an unmincing ombudsman or sentinel on the qui vive with power to act against those in power, now or before, and offering legal access to the informed citizen to complain with immunity does not exist, despite all the bruited umbrage of political performers against peculations and perversions by higher echelons. Law is what law says and the moral gap between word and deed menaces people's faith in life and law. And then, the tragedy - democracy becomes a casualty." "The impact of 'summit' crimes in the Third World setting is more terrible than the Watergate syndrome as perceptive social scientists have unmasked. Corruption and repression-cousins in such situations-hijack developmental processes.

And, in 634 the long run, lagging national progress means ebbing peop1e's confidence in constitutional means to social justice. And so, to track down and give short shrift to these heavy-weight criminaloids who often mislead the people by public moral weight lifting and multipoint manifestoes is an urgent legislative mission partially undertaken by the Bill under discussion. To punish such super offenders in top positions, sealing off legalistic escape routes and dilutory strategies and bringing them to justice with high speed and early finality, is a desideratum voiced in vain by Commissions and Committees in the past and is a dimension of the dynamics of the Rule of Law.....

" The Court must therefore interpret Section 165 according to its plain language without in any manner being anxious or astute to narrow down its interpretation. Section 165 must be construed in a manner which would advance the remedy and suppress the mischief which is intended to be curbed. This was the canon of construction which was adopted by this Court in interpreting Section 165 in R.C. Jacob v. Union of India, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 800. There are a few decisions of ancient vintage which have dealt with the interpretation of Section 165 but since we are not finally laying down the true scope and ambit of Section 165 we do not propose to discuss these decisions. Suffice it to point out at the present stage that on its plain terms Section 165 is wider than Section 161 and that an act of corruption not falling within Section 161 may yet come within the wide terms of Section 165. What Section 161 envisages is that any gratification other than legal remuneration should have been accepted or obtained or agreed to be accepted or attempted to be obtained by the accused for himself or for any other person as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, while Section 165 does not require taking of gratification as a motive or reward for any specific official action, favour or service but strikes at obtaining by a public servant of any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows 635 to have been or to be or likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate or from whom any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned.

Whereas under Section 161 it is necessary to establish that the taking of gratification must be connected with any specific official action, favour or service by way of motive or reward, no such connection is necessary to be proved in order to bring whom an offence under Section 165 and all that is necessary to establish is that a valuable thing is accepted or obtained or agreed to be accepted or attempted to be obtained by a public servant from any person whom he knows to have been or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant or having any connection with the official function of such public servant and such valuable thing has been accepted or obtained or agreed to be accepted or attempted to be obtained without consideration or for a consideration which such public servant knows to be inadequate. The reach of Section 165 is definitely wider than that of Section 161. Moreover, it is clear from illustration (c) to Section 165 that money or currency is regarded by the Legislature as a valuable thing and if it is accepted or obtained by a public servant without consideration or for inadequate consideration in the circumstances set out in Section 165, such public servant would be guilty of an offence under that Section Having said this much on the interpretation of Section 165 we now proceed to examine the facts on the basis of which the High Court has declined to frame certain charges against the first respondent.

We will first deal with the 35th, 36th and 37th of the draft charges which were submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant before the High Court and on the basis of which the High Court was invited by him to frame charges against the first respondent These charges related to a transaction in which according to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs was paid by one Ramesh Merchant and his partners by way of contribution to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan on 16th April 1981 as a motive for the granting of no objection certificate by the first respondent for letting out of certain premises by M/s Nanubhai Jewellers of which Ramesh Merchant 636 and some others were partners to Indo-Suez Bank. The facts giving rise to these charges in so far as relevant may be briefly stated as follows.

There was a firm called M/s Nanubhai Jewellers which was in possession of certain ground floor premises situate at 113/ 115, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Bombay as a tenant.

There were various changes in the constitution on this firm from time to time but we are not concerned with these changes in the present appeal. What is material to note is that at the relevant time this firm consisted of Mukesh Dadlani, Lal Chand Rohra, Ramesh Merchant his father and two other partners. The rent payable by this firm was originally Rs. 3000 per month but under a new agreement of lease dated 27th September 1979 the rent was raised to Rs. 15000 per month in consideration of the landlords giving to the tenant power to sub-let the premises. It seems that since 1979-80 this firm was incurring losses and was not in a position to make use of the premises for its own purposes and hence it decided to sub-let the entire premises barring about 500 sq.

ft. to Indo-Suez Bank at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,24,120 and an agreement of lease was entered into between them on 12th December 1980. But it was not possible for this firm to sub- let the premises to Indo-Suez Bank without a no objection certificate from the Controller of Accommodation in view of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948. The partners of this firm therefore made an application to the Controller of Accommodation on 13th January 1981 pointing out that the Indo Suez Bank had approached them with a request to allow them to use the premises for the purpose of opening their branch office in Bombay and that it would be advantageous to the country to make it possible for the Indo-Suez Bank to open a branch office and requesting the Controller of Accommodation "to grant the necessary permission...........

to permit the Bank to use the premises on sub-lease basis".

Though this application was dated 13th January 1981, it appears from the endorsement made on the application that it was received in the office of the Controller of Accommodation on 11th February 1981. Thereafter on 19th February 1981 an officer from the office of the Controller of Accommodation visited the premises and certain documents relating to the partnership of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers were handed over by Lal Chand Rohra and the father of Ramesh Merchant to such officer. They also handed over to 637 such officer copies of the rent receipts for November, 1973 and November, 1980 as also a Xerox copy of the registration certificate of the firm under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. Ramesh Merchant several times went to the office of the Controller of Accommodation for no- objection certificate but he was told that the application was under process. Now the record shows that on 14th February, 1981 a noting was made in the file seeking a direction whether suppressed vacancy inquiry should be made to ascertain whether the premises could be requisitioned as a suppressed vacancy or whether the no objection certificate should be granted. Further inquiry was thereupon made for the purpose of determining whether there was a suppressed vacancy in respect of the premises and after such inquiry was completed a further noting was made on 2nd March 1981 recommending that in view of the facts set out in that noting "it is for orders whether we may consider the request and grant" the no objection certificate in this case. Shri Rawat, who was an Accommodation Officer, made an endorsement on the foot of his further noting pointing out that according to the inquiry made by the office no vacancy had actually occurred at any time in the premises and there was accordingly no suppressed vacancy and moreover only a part of the premises was proposed to be sub-let by the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers and hence the premises could not be requisitioned as a suppressed vacancy and consequently no objection certificate might be granted. The file containing these notings thereafter went to the Additional Chief Secretary who also placed his signature below that of Shri Rawat indicating his agreement with the endorsement made by Shri Rawat. The date below the signature of the Additional Chief Secretary is a little doubtful but we can safely take it to be 2nd March F 1981 since there is an endorsement at the bottom of the page showing that the file was received in the Secretariat of the Additional Chief Secretary on 12th March 1981 and obviously it must have gone to the Secretariat to the Chief Minister after making of the endorsement by the Additional Chief Secretary. The page of the file containing the endorsement of Shri Rawat also contains in red ink an endorsement made by the first respondent and this endorsement reads "in view of "lA", "B" may be done" and below this endorsement is the signature of the first respondent and below that is the date which presently reads 16/3. We shall revert to this endorsement of the first respondent a little later when we examine the arguments urged on behalf of the parties.

638 Now according to the evidence of Ramesh Merchant he came to know from the staff of the office of the Controller of Accommodation in the first week of April, 1981 that file rebting to their application for no objection certificate had been forwarded to the first respondent. Ramesh Marchant knew the first respondent quite-well since he and his father had been stitching clothes for the first respondent. Ramesh Merchant therefore, after consulting his partners, went to the residence of the first respondent a day or two after he received the above information that the file had been forwarded to the first respondent. Ramesh Merchant stated in his evidence that he told the first respondent about the application for permission made on behalf of the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers and requested the first respondent to sanction grant of no objection certificate stating that he and his father were partners in that firm. The first respondent stated that he knew that the file of the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers had been forwarded to him and that Lf the premises were to be given to a Bank there could be no objection to grant of a no objection certificate. The first respondent, however, asked Ramesh Merchant "to make a handsome donation to the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan" and when Ramesh Merchant asked the first respondent as to how much he would like them to donate, the first respondent asked Ramesh Marchant to donate Rs. 10 lakhs. Ramesh Merchant thereupon pointed out to the first respondent that there was a registered agreement between the Government of India and the Government of France whereunder the Government of France had permitted the State Bank of India to open its Branch at Paris and the Government of India had consequently permitted Indo- Suez Bank to open its Branch at Bombay and he accordingly requested the first respondent "to name a reasonable amount for donation". The first respondent, according to the evidence of Ramesh Merchant considered his request sympathetically and asked him to donate Rs. 8 lakhs.

Ramesh Merchant thereupon told the first respondent that he would consult his other partners and let him know. Ramesh Merchant thereafter contacted Lal Chand Pohra and other partners and told them that he had met the first respondent in connection with the grant of no objection certificate and the first respondent had demanded Rs. 10 lakhs for the no objection certificate but it was ultimately agreed that the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers would pay Rs; 8 lakhs by way of donation to a Government Trust namely Indira Gandhi 639 Pratibha Pratishthan. Lal Chand Rohra and other parties agreed to donate the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan and a cheque for Rs. 8 lakhs was accordingly issued by the partners of the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers. Ramesh Merchant took this cheque to the first respondent at his residence on 16th April 1981 and on being informed that a cheque had been brought the first respondent called one of his secretaries and asked Ramesh Merchant to hand-over the cheque to him. Ramesh Merchant accordingly handed over the cheque for Rs. 8 lakhs to the Secretary. Ramesh Merchant was at this stage in his evidence asked the following question by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

What did the accused tell you about the NOC ? and to this question the following answer was given by Ramesh Merchant :

"The accused told me that the needful would be done in the matter." Ramesh Merchant reiterated in cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent:

"After I handed over the cheque the accused stated that he will do the needful in the matter." The no objection certificate was thereafter issued by the office of the Controller of Accommodation on 18th April 1981. On these facts the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that offences under Section 161, 165 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 were clearly made out on behalf of the prosecution so as to warrant the framing of charges for the said offences against the first respondent.

It is clear from the cross-examination of Ramesh Merchant by the learned counsel on behalf of the first respondent that the case of the first respondent was that Ramesh Merchant had not gone to visit the first respondent on either at the two occasions depose to by him nor had Ramesh Merchant offered the cheque of Rs. 8 lakhs to the Chief Minister but that the cheque of Rs. 8 lakhs was sent by the father of Ramesh Merchant directly to the Secretary, Indira Gandhi Pratibha 640 Pratishthan along with a letter dated 16th April 1981. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the donation of Rs. 8 lakhs by the partners of the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan had nothing to do with the grant of no objection certificate and that the two were totally distinct transactions not having any connection with each other. The order of grant of no objection certificate to the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers had according to the learned counsel for the first respondent already been made by the first respondent on 16th March 1981 and for this purpose he relied on the endorsement in red ink made by the first respondent in the file relating to the grant of no objection certificate at the bottom of the page containing the endorsement of Shri Rawat. The argument of the learned counsel for the first respondent was that if the order for grant of no objection certificate had already been made by the first respondent on 16th March 1981 there could possibly be no connection between the grant of no objection certificate and the donation of Rs. 8 lakhs which came to be independently made on 16th April 1981. This argument is prima facie specious and does not appeal to us.

We do not see any reason why for the purpose of considering whether a charge should be framed or not we should disbelieve the evidence of Ramesh Merchant and Lalchand Rohra. What we have to consider is whether the evidence led on behalf of the complainant in regard to this transaction is such that if unrebutted that would warrant the conviction of the first respondent. We are clearly of the view that a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the prosecution and the evidence led before the court is such as to warrant the conviction of the first respondent unless satisfactorily rebutted.

The first question that we must consider is whether the endorsement sanctioning the grant of no objection certificate to the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers was made by the first respondent on 16th March 1981 or it was made on 16th April 1981 but the figure "16/4" below the endorsement of the first respondent was at some stage tempered with and altered to "16/3" by overwriting the figure "3" over the original figure "4". This is not the stage to come to any definite finding on this question because after the charges are framed, evidence may have to be led on behalf of the prosecution for the purpose of establishing overwriting of the figure "4" by the 641 figure "3" and the first respondent may also lead the evidence to show that there is no overwriting and the original figure always was "3". But while we are considering the prima facie case made out against the first respondent we cannot help observing that it does appear from the original endorsement in red ink made by the first respondent at the bottom of the relevant page in the file (Ex. 815(D) that figure "3" has been thickly written over another figure which was presumably "4". The possibility cannot be ruled out that the original date below the endorsement was "16/4" and the figure "4" was overwritten by figure "3" with a view to showing as if the endorsement was made on 16th March 1981. This possibility does seem to receive support from the circumstance that, as appearing from the stamped endorsement on the last page of the file (Ex. 815(D), the file was received back in the office of the Controller of Accommodation on 18th April 1981. It is a little difficult to understand that, if the first respondent made his endorsement in red ink sanctioning the grant of no objection certificate on 16th March 1981, the file should not have gone back to the Controller of Accommodation until 18th April 1981. It is perhaps more probable that the endorsement in red ink was made by the first respondent on 16th April 1981 and immediately thereafter the file was sent back and received in the office of the Controller of Accommodation on 18th April 1981. There is also one other endorsement at the bottom of the page (Ex. 815(D) which says "Secretary has seen it" and it bears the date "18/4". All these circumstances do go to indicate prima facie that the endorsement in red ink sanctioning the grant of no objection certificate was made by the first respondent on 16th April 1981. And, if that be so, it lends considerable support to the oral testimony of Ramesh Merchant and Lal Chand Rohra.

Ramesh Merchant clearly stated in his evidence that when he met the first respondent at his residence "Varsha" on 11th or 12th April 1981 - perhaps the date was 14th April 1981 - the first respondent stated that since the premises were to be sub-let to Indo-Suez Bank there should be no difficulty in granting no objection certificate but he asked Ramesh Merchant to make a handsome donation to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan. The context in which the demand for a handsome donation was made by the first respondent left Ramesh Merchant in no doubt that a handsome donation would have to be given by 642 his firm in consideration of getting the no objection certificate. When asked as to how much he would like the firm of Nanubhai Jewellers to donate, the first respondent asked Ramesh Merchant to donate Rs. 10 lakhs and when Ramesh Merchant pointed out that the Government of India have permitted the Indo-Suez Bank to open its branch in Bombay and the premises were being sub-let to Indo-Suez Bank and requested him to name a reasonable figure for the donation, the first respondent considered the request of Ramesh Merchant sympathetically and asked him to donate Rs. 8 lakhs. The circumstance that Ramesh Merchant had to request the first respondent to name a reasonable amount for the donation and that the first respondent considered this request reasonably, does go to show that pressure was exercised on Ramesh Merchant to make a handsome donation as consideration for the grant of no objection certificate and the ultimate figure demanded was Rs. 8 lakhs. If the donation was being made voluntarily why should any request have been made by Ramesh Merchant to the first respondent to name a reasonable amount and where could be the question of such a request being considered sympathetically by the first respondent. Moreover, when Ramesh Merchant contacted Lalchand Rohra and his other parterns after this meeting with the first respondent, he clearly told them that the first respondent had demanded Rs. 10 lakhs for the no objection certificate but it was ultimately agreed that the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers would pay Rs. 8 lakhs by way of donation to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by Lalchand Rohra to this effect. Since the rent which the firm of M/s. Nanubhai Jewellers was to get from Indo-Suez Bank was phenomenal and it was more than eight times the rent payable by it to the landlord, the partners of the firm of M/s. Nanubhai Jewellers obviously did not mind paying the donation of Rs. 8 lakhs for getting the no objection certificate. The cheque for Rs. 8 lakhs was made out and according to the evidence of Ramesh Merchant, he went to the residence of the first respondent "Varsha" on the same day, namely 16 April 1981 and handed over the cheque to the Secretary as directed by the first respondent. It is significant to note that the Order sanctioning the grant of no objection certificate was made by the first respondent on the file on 16th April 1981, i.e. on the same date on which the cheque for Rs. 8 lakhs was received from the firm of M/s. Nanubhai Jewellers and the no objection 643 was issued within two days after the receipt of the cheque.

These are tell-tale circumstances which prima facie go to show that the grant of no objection certificate and the donation of Rs. 8 lakhs were closely related transactions and that one was in fact the consideration for the other. It may also be noted that the firm of M/s. Nanubhai Jewellers had been incurring losses for the last more than two years and if that be so, it is difficult to understand why the partners of this firm should have voluntarily decided to make a donation of Rs. 8 lakhs. What altruistic motive could have inspired them to have made such a handsome donation when they themselves were incurring losses. Prima Facie, the inference to be drawn from these circumstances is irresistible and unless the first respondent can rebut this evidence, it is difficult to reject the contention of the prosecution that a prima facie case has been made out against the first respondent in respect of this transaction.

It is undoubtedly true that in cross-examination by the learned counsel for the first respondent Ramesh Merchant stated that no objection certificate has been granted on the merits of the application and not as a favour to the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers but this statement cannot make any difference to the correct evaluation of the evidence because whatever be the view of Ramesh Merchant as to whether the no objection had been granted to him on merits or not, it is the totality of the evidence which has to be considered and even if the firm of M/s Nanubhai Jewellers were entitled to obtain no objection certificate on merits, still the first respondent could bargain for a handsome donation as quid pro quo for granting the no objection certificate which was entirely within his power to do so.

We are, therefore, of the view that a prima facie case was made out on behalf of the prosecution against the first respondent in respect of the transaction of no objection certificate and 35th, 36th and 37th charges should have been framed against the first respondent.

That takes us to draft charges 29, 30, and 31 arising out of the donations made by M/s Hira Nandani Builders and Hira Nandani Construction Private Limited to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan. It is necessary to state briefly the facts relating to this transaction in order to be able to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the 644 prosecution against the respondent in regard to this transaction and evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is such that if unrebutted it would warrant the conviction of the respondent on these charges. These draft charges are sought to be made good on the basis of the oral evidence of the sole witness Hira Nandani PW-28 and the documentary evidence produced in the course of his deposition. We will begin by first referring to the evidence of Hira Nandani and whilst we consider that evidence we shall refer to the various documents produced in the case.

Hira Nandani was known to the respondent for more than 15 years and in fact the respondent was a family friend of Hira Nandani, having been a patient of the father of Hira Nandani who is a leading Ear, Nose, and Throat specialist in Bombay. In 1974-75 Hira Nandani entered the construction business and started a limited company called Baf-Hira Builders Private Limited. We are not concerned with this company in the present appeal. There were also two other concerns started by Hira Nandani in 1979 in course of the construction business but these are also not relevant for our purpose except that we may state the names of these two concerns, namely, Hira Nandani Constructions and Hira Nagar Constructions. In January, 1981 Hira Nandani started a partership in the name of Hira Nandani Enterprises. It is this firm which figures prominently in the history of this case. There were also four other partnership firms started by Hira Nandani in the same year and these were Hira Nagar Developers, Hira Nandani Developers, Apex Constructions and Apex Builders. There was also a private limited company floated by Hira Nandani in the name of Hira Nandani Constructions Private Limited. These various concerns of Hira Nandani undertook construction contracts which were started sometime in 1980 and 1981. One of the construction works undertaken by Hira Nandani was in the name of Hira Nandani Enterprises and this construction work was undertaken under an agreement with Udyogik Shramik Kamgar Housing Society. It appears that in respect of the construction work undertaken by the various concerns of Hira Nandani there was a stalemate in or about April 1981 and the construction works were held up for want of cement. The concerns of Hira Nandani had received some small quantities of cement but the quantities received were wholly inadequate and no further quantities of cement 645 were available because cement was a controlled item and unless allotment of quota of cement was made by the State Government, it was not possible for any builder to obtain cement. Now the record shows that the entire control over allotment of quota of cement was retained by the respondent with himself in his capacity as Chief Minister and no allotment could be made without his sanction or approval.

Since the concerns of Hira Nandani were starved of cement and they could not proceed with the construction works undertaken by them without cement they made applications to the respondent from time to time for allotment of quota of cement. We have on record four applications dated 28th April 1981, one being Ex. 355 and 355A made by Hira Nandani Construction Private Limited, the second being Ex. 356 and 356A addressed by Hira Nagar Developers, the third being Ex.

357 and 357A addressed by Hira Nagar Constructions and the fourth being Ex. 358 and 358A addressed by Hira Nagar Enterprises. All these applications were addressed to the respondent in his capacity as Chief Minister. The application of Hira Nandani Constructions Private Limited Ex. 355 and 355A pointed out that until the date of the application the company had been allotted only 30 metric tonns of cement and requested the respondent to allot at least 250 metric tonns of cement. Similarly the application of Hira Nagar Developers Ex. 356 and 356A complained that the firm had not received any supply of cement at all and requested the respondents to allot at least 250 metric tonns of cement. So also the application of Hira Nagar Constructions Ex. 357 and 357A stated that the firm had received until the date of the application only 50 metric tonns of cement and requested the respondent to allot at least 250 metric tonns of cement. And lastly the application of Hira Nandani Enterprises Ex. 358 and 358A also pointed out that no allotment of cement had been received by them and requested the respondent that at least 100 metric tonns of cement should be allotted to them. The record shows that pursuant to the application of Hira Nandani Construction Private Limited Ex. 355 and 355A allotment of 200 metric tonns was made to the company but this allotment lapsed and the company could not obtain delivery of any quantity of cement under this allotment. Subsequently, however, another order of allotment was made on 23rd July 1981 Ex. 693 under which 100 metric tonns of cement was allotted and the company could obtain delivery of 100 metric tonns of cement under this order of allotment. The allotment of 200 metric tonns of cement was also made on the application of Hira Nagar Developers Ex. 356 646 and 356A but the firm could obtain only 74 metric tonns of cement under this letter of allotment and the balance lapsed. Thereafter another order of allotment was made on 23rd July, 1981 granting 25 metric tonns of cement and this quantity of cement was lifted by the firm Hira Nagar Developers. Similarly 200 metric tonns of cement was lifted on the application of Hira Nagar Construction Ex. 357 and 357A but this allotment also lapsed and Hira Nagar Construction could not obtain the delivery of any quantity out of 200 metric tonns allotted to them but in this case also a subsequent order of allotment was made on 23rd July, 1981 alloting 50 metric tonns of cement and this quantity of 50 metric tonns was lifted by Hira Nagar Construction. The same position obtained in regard to Messrs Hira Nandani Enterprises. In the case of this concern also allotment of 100 metric tonns was made on the application Ex. 358 and 358A but this allotment lapsed because it was made in such a manner that this concern could not obtain delivery of any quantity out of 100 metric tonns allotted to it.

Subsequently on the same date as in the case of the other three concerns, that is, on 23rd July, 1981 an order was made alloting 50 metric tonns of cement to Hira Nandani Enterprises and delivery of 50 metric tonns of cement was taken by this concern pursuant to the order of allotment. It will thus be seen that in the case of these four concerns, namely, Hira Nandani Construction Private Limited, Hira Nagar Developers, Hira Nagar Construction and Hira Nandani Enterprises, only 74 metric tonns of cement could be obtained prior to 4th July, 1981 and it was admitted by Hira Nandani in the course of his evidence that it was correct that till 15th June, 1981, that he had not received more than 400 metric tonns of cement against the four applications dated 28th April, 1981 Exs. 355 and 355A to 358 and 358A. It was only when as a result of further representations made to the respondent, new orders of allotment were issued on 23rd July, 1981 that some quantities of cement could be obtained by these four concerns of Hira Nandani.

We have already referred to the fact that Hira Nandani Enterprises had undertaken construction work under the agreement with Udyogik Shramik Kamgar Housing Society. On account of want of cement this construction work had almost come to a stand-still in June, 1981. Hira Nandani Enterprises had also not been able to obtain any quantity of cement in 647 respect of the other construction work undertaken by them at Villa Parle (East) despite the application dated 28th April, 1981 made by them to the respondent. The two applications were accordingly made to the respondent on 24th June, 1981, one by Hira Nandani Enterprises, marked as Ex. 354, pointing out that in respect of the construction work at Villa Parle (East) they had till then received only 50 metric tonns of cement and requesting the respondent to allot atleast a further quantity of 50 metric tonns and the other by Udyogic Shramik Kamgar Housing Society, marked as Ex. 353, pointing out that the Society had till then received only 478 metric tonns of cement and requesting the respondent to arrange to allot atleast another 250 metric tonns. It is not clear from the record whether 50 metric tonns of cement stated in the application of Hira Nandani Enterprises to have been received by them had in fact been received or that merely on the basis of the allotment made and the price paid, a statement was made that 50 metric tonns had been received.

But it is not necessary for the purpose of the present appeal to come to a finding whether 50 metric tonns had in fact been actually received by Hira Nandani Enterprises before the application Ex. 354 was made by them. It is sufficient to state that both these applications Exs. 353 and 354 were granted by the respondent and two permits were issued on 4th July, 1981, one for 50 metric tonns in favour of Hira Nandani Enterprises and the other for 200 metric tonns in favour of Udyogic Shramik Kamgar Housing Society.

Now it is common ground between the parties that one metric tonn of cement would comprise 20 bags and 50 metric tonns would be equivalent to 1000 bags while 200 metric tonns would be equivalent to 4000 bags. The record shows that on 4th July, 1981 being the same date on which the two permits were issued for 50 metric tonns and 200 metric tonns respectively, two donations were made to Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan, one for Rs. 30,000 made by Hira Nandani Constructions Private Limited and the other for Rs. 1,20,000 made by Hira Nandani Builders both being concerns of Hira Nandani. The donations of Rs. 30,000 b