TMI Blog1966 (2) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o preferred a cross appeal. The Division Bench accepted the defendants' appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of Sanghi, J., and dismissed the plaintiff's suit as also his cross appeal. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an appeal under S. 25 of the Madhya Bharat 'High Court of Judicature Act, 1949, as it stood before it was amended by Madhya Bharat Act No. 3 of 1950. When this appeal came up for hearing before a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a preliminary objection as to the competency of the appeal was taken on behalf of the defendants-respondents. The Full Bench held that the appeal was not competent, but this Court, on appeal, held that the appeal was competent and remitted the case to the High Court for decision on merits. On remand the Full Bench upheld the decision of the Division Bench and dismissed the appeal. The matter is now before us. In view of the arguments urged before us by learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. C. B. Aggarwala, it is not necessary to give in detail the history of the disputes between the parties, or all the points that were debated before the High Court. To appreciate the arguments addressed to us it is only necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int arises and the appeal must fail. We may here state the primary facts and the findings of the Division Bench and the Full Bench. After the award was made Govindram addressed a letter to Mr. Jall as a member of the Enquiry Committee on February 13, 1941, intimating to him that the Prime Minister of the Holkar State had given an award on February 8, 1941, in his favour, and forwarding a copy of the award. On the same date Govindram addressed a similar letter to the plaintiff. A day or two after the receipt of this letter by the plaintiff Govindram met him at his house and made him an offer of making him a partner of the managing agency firm by assigning two and half annas shares out of the share of Brijlal and Bilasrai which he was to get under the award. The next day the plaintiff accepted the offer and on February 28, 1941, the agreement was concluded between the parties. A day before the agreement was signed by the parties, Gulabchand, Plaintiff, addressed a letter to Mr. Jall, the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee, on February 27, 1941, for holding the meetings of the Committee daily so as to expedite its report. On February 8, 1941, Govindram met Mr. Jall, and offered to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndram was prepared to give the entire four annas share he had obtained under the award to the Holkar State in charity was in itself an indication that the offer of two and half annas share to Gulabchand was not made by Govindram on account of his own financial stringency. After considering various facts the Full Bench concluded that the share in the managing agency partnership of the mills was, therefore, not one which could be parted away easily by a partner or could be had by anyone for the mere asking and readiness to furnish the necessary proportionate capital and to purchase the debentures of the required amount, without any more. That any more in the present case, is, as the learned Judges of the Division Bench have suggested, nothing else than the anxiety of Govindram to get a favourable report from the Enquiry Committee and the willingness of the plaintiff to oblige him by making a favourable report. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances narrated in the judgment of the Division Bench at pages 170 to 173 of the printed paper book, and those summarised above, the conclusion at which the learned Judges arrived that the transaction was in the nature of bribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... probable a crime is, the greater of necessity is the force of the evidence required to overcome such presumption. I cannot myself imagine a Court saying to a party, who, as in this case, may be a person holding a high and responsible position, with a previous unblemished record : It is true that I have reasonable doubts whether you did the grossly criminal acts with which you are charged, but I find that you did so all the same. And this exclusion of reasonable doubt is all that the so-called criminal proof requires. Fletcher, J., the Trial Judge, relying on Jarat Kumari Dassi v. Bissesur(2) to which Woodroffe, J., was a party, had overruled the point that the standard of proof in a civil case, in which a charge ,of a criminal character is made, was the same as if the parties were being tried for a criminal offence. He observed that in India, under the Indian Evidence Act, there is no rule that the standard ,of proof in a case like the present must be the same as if the defendants were being tried on a criminal charge. This case (Jarat Kumari Dassi v. Bissesur)(1) was followed in Prasannamayi Debya ,v. Baikuntha Nath Chattoraj(2). The Division Bench followed these observati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his evidence had not been put to the plaintiff. HiralaI had deposed that after the award the plaintiff saw him and told him that there was some settlement between him and Govindram. It is not necessary to decide this point because the Full Bench did not base its findings on Hiralal's. evidence. Mr. Aggarwala, relying on Raja Singh v. Chaichoo Singh(A.T.R. 1940 Patna 210 at 203) further urges that in case of circumstantial evidence the circumstances must be such -so as to exclude any other reasonable possibility and he says that if this principle is applied to this case the finding of bribery must be reversed as the facts are equally consistent with the plaintiff having acted honestly. Meredith, J., had observed as follows Now it is well-settled that where fraud is to be inferred from the circumstances, and is not directly proved, those circumstances must be such as to exclude any other reasonable possibility. In other words, the criterion is similar to that which is applicable to circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. We are unable to agree with these observations. As we have said before, the fact that the party is alleged to -have accepted bribe in a civil case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
