Special Leave Petition Civil No 9814 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 1371988 of the Delhi High Court in CWP No 3423 of 1987
Govinda Mukhoty RN Keswani Irfan Ahmed and M Safid for the Petitioner
Kuldip Singh Additional Solicitor General Mrs Sushma Suri Ms Indu Goswami Pinaki Mishra and Ms Bina Gupta for the Respondents
PG NO 284 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This petition is for special leave to appeal from the decision of the High Court of Delhi dated 13th July 1988
By the said Order the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner
In the said writ petition the petitioner had asked for a direction to the Union of India andor the Doordarshan to accept the script of the petitioner and eventually to give him the contract
The High Court in its order recorded that there was no substance in the allegation that Shri Gulzar respondent No Z herein had been preferred over the petitioner by practising discrimination
There was a proposal to produce TV serials based on national integration communal harmony against exploitation of child labour equal status for women etc
and the last date for submitting such projects was 7th May 1986
It was further announced by the Doordarshan that the project should be completed in terms of the guidelines issued by the Doordarshan respondent No 1
The said guidelines for sponsored programme to be produced by sponsor indicate certain requirement for the proposals
The guidelines inter alia state in clause 2 that the proposals for sponsored programmes should consist of the following a break up of the story in episodes and broadline of treatment b complete synopsis of each episode c detailed scenario script of at least one episodes and d confirmed names and addresses of Director Camera man Music Director ScriptDialogue Writer Main Artists etc
Clause 3 of the said guidelines indicated further that all proposals received by the Doordarshan will be given a reference number and acknowledge
In case proposals not accompanied by any of the foregoing documents mentioned aforesaid are received a suitable indication would be given by the Doordarshan to the Producer along with the acknowledgment
It further indicated that a proposal would be considered complete only after the required number of copies of the documents mentioned aforesaid were supplied
It appears thereforethat a proposal though not containing all the particulars would still be a Proposal but not a complete proposal but the proposal will be complete only PG NO 285 after the required number of copies of all the documents mentioned hereinbefore are supplied
The theme with which the petitioner was concerned and with which also the proposal of respondent No 2 was concerned was the life and history of the great Urdu poet Mirza Ghalib
It was the case of the petitioner that before the last date for the submission of the project on 7th May 1986 though the petitioner had submitted his project respondent No 2 had not
The High Court did not accept the aforesaid allegation
We have examined the records and the acknowledgment sheets in original which were produced in the Court for our satisfaction and it appears to us that the High Court was right on this point and the petitioner was not
Respondent No 2 submitted it appears the theme of the matter by a letter dated 4th February 1986
This was not undoubtedly a complete project
It was only on the theme of the project namely
the life and history of the great poet Mirza Ghalib
The petitioner however by a letter dated 13th March 1986 submitted the proposal with 13 episodes giving the entire idea of his project depicting the life of Mirza Ghalib and his contribution to the national integration
The final decision to award the project to respondent No 2 was taken it appears some time in November 1986 after considering three complete proposals on the project
It appears to us from the records that the Doordarshan authorities found that the project submitted by the petitioner was not attractive or interesting
It appears further from the letter that the Doordarshan authorities did not find the proposal of the petitioner to be attractive or interesting enough
There was one more proposal given by another person apart from the petitioner and respondent No 2
It is however not clear what that proposal was
It appears that the Doordarshan authorities did not find the proposal of that person to be any more attractive or interesting than that of the petitioner
In the meantime respondent No 2 had submitted his proposal and the Doordarshan though the proposal was not complete asked respondent No2 to give further details and after they were submitted by respondent No 2it was examined by the Committee
It was asserted on behalf of respondent No 2 and it appears to be corroborated by the records that before the proposal of respondent No 2 was considered the script and the proposal of the petitioner as well as that of the other person were considered and not found to be attractive or interesting enough
Therefore it appears that though the idea was presented by respondent No2 by a letter but the matter was decided only after the entire proposal had been submitted by respondent No 2
It appears therefore that all the proposals were duly considered by the Committee
It further appears that PG NO 286 respondent No 2 had submitted his proposal before his was respondent No 2 had submitted his proposal before his was accepted by the Doordarshan authorities
The conduct of the Doordarshan in awarding the opportunity of serialising the script to respondent No 2 was challenged as arbitrary and mala fide
It is well settled that there should be fair play in action in a situation like the present one as was observed by this Court in Ram  Shyam Co vs State of Haryana  Ors  at pages 268 269
It is also well settled that the authorities like the Doordarshan should act fairly and their action should be legitimate and fair and transaction should be without any aversion malice or affection
Nothing should be done which gives the impression of favouritism or nepotism
See the observations of this Court in Haji TM Hassan Rawther vs Kerala Financial Corpn AIR 1988 SC 157 at page 161
While as mentioned hereinbefore fair play in action in matters like the present one is an essential requirement similarly however free play in the joints  is also a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere as the present one
Judged from that stand point of view though all the proposals might not have been considered strictly in accordance with order of precedence it appears that these were considered fairly reasonably objectively and without any malice or ill will
Respondent No 2 it further appears
has a long record of steady and successful performance in direction script writing recognised by the conventional yardstick of the society
Ii  having regard to such a record certain latitude in taking up for consideration was shown to the proposal submitted by the respondent No 2 in our opinion respondent No 1 did not transgress the limits of fair play in action
All the proposals were as mentioned hereinbefore duly considered
These were considered by a Committee of eminent persons
Our attention was drawn to the names of the members of the Committee
As mentioned hereinbefore the Committee did not find the proposal of the petitioner and the other person either attractive or interesting enough in awarding the TV serial on the aspect of national integration of the lifetime of Mirza Ghalib
After it was so found the idea of respondent No 2 was considered and the proposal was duly considered
We have satisfied ourselves from the records produced at the time of the hearing and from the affidavits filed before us that there was objectivity in the actual consideration of the PG NO 287 different proposals and that there was fairness in the decision and that no malice or ill will coloured the decision making process in this case
The petitioner was not refused proper consideration because what respondent No  described the petitioner as one who is a maverick 
In the aforesaid light and in the facts of this case and the principles of law that are applicable we are satisfied that the High Court was right and the decision of the respondent No 1 does not call for any interference
The Special Leave Petition must fail and is therefore dismissed accordingly
Y Lal Petition dismissed


Summary:
The respondent a sub inspector of police was charged with acceptance of Rs 100 as a bribe from two persons B and P for dropping a case which he had instituted against B under the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act 1946
The prosecution case was that when the demand for the bribe made by the respondent could not be avoided B and P approached the Anticorrosive Department and it was arranged that the respondent should be paid at the police station the bribe money in the shape of currency notes produced by B and P and initialled by M who was in charge of the Anti Corruption Department and that M along with a Deputy Superintendent of the Department and a first class Magistrate should be at the police station at the time of payment dressed as ordinary villagers  that as soon as the amounts in notes were received by the respondent the officers disclosed their identity that thereupon the respondent tried to throw away the currency notes but that as a result of the officers catching hold of his hands the notes were found in his hand except one which was missing and that as a result of a search made in the presence of two search witnesses later the missing note was also found
The respondent was tried by the Special judge who accepted the prosecution evidence and found him guilty of the offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code
On appeal to the High Court the learned single judge who disposed of the appeal held that the respondent could not be convicted because 1 there was no independent witness to support the testimony of the  raiding party  consisting of the two bribegivers and the three officers 2 the search witnesses did not prove the transaction nor were they present at the time of the occur rence and 3 the decision in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs State of Vindhya Pradesh  had laid down an invariable rule that in cases of this nature the testimony of those witnesses who form what is called  the raiding party  must be discarded unless that testimony is corroborated by independent witnesses
The State appealed by special leave  Held 1 that the evidence of the two search witnesses provided independent corroboration in a material particular to 196 the testimony of the raiding party because the missing currency note one of the series testified to by the raiding party could be found where it was actually found only if the testimony of the raiding party was true
2that corroboration need not be by direct evidence that the accused committed the crime it is sufficient even though it is merely by circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime
Rameshwar vs The State of Rajasthan   followed
3that the decision in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs State of Vindhya Pradesh  has not laid down any inflexible rule that the evidence of the witnesses of the raiding party must be discarded in all cases in the absence of any independent corroboration
The correct rule is that if any of the witnesses are accom plices their evidence is admissible in law but the judge must warn the jury of the danger of convicting the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice  if the case is tried without the aid of a jury the judge should indicate in his judgment that he had this rule of caution in mind and give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration if however the witnesses are not accomplices but are merely partisan or interested witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap their evidence must be tested in the same way as any other interested evidence is tested and in a proper case the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person
If a Magistrate puts himself in the position of a partisan or interested witness he cannot claim any higher status and must be treated as any other interested witness