He not only executed the possession receipt in that behalf but also filled in and filed a declaration form mentioning the names of the members of his family depending upon him.The other members of his family were his wife Parvatibai, his three sons Prakash, Vasant, Nivrutti and his daughter, Mangala.There is no dispute that Block No. 4 allotted to him consists of two rooms and a kitchen and a balcony in addition to the sanitary block.The prosecution case further is that in the year 1976 the Anti-Corruption Bureau received a report regarding the practice of some of the employees in the Government Central Press of sub-letting the Government quarters allotted to them at Bandra as well as Kala Chowky and of profiteering at the Government expense.But all that he had charged to Dr. Mrs. Ranganayaki was the same amount which he was paying to the Government.As mentioned above, the question involves a widespread social evil.Hundreds of them keep waiting for months and years together for their turn to arrive.The significance of this stringent condition will be mentioned presently.It is further mentioned in the order that the allotted residential accommodation could be used by the Government employee only for his own residence and for the residence of the members of his family.In pursuance of the report, investigation was conducted in connection with the various Government quarters.It was on the basis of this F.I.R. that an offence was registered by Sub-inspector Desai on the same date 17th March, 1978 and after duly obtaining the sanction for investigation, the investigation was carried on.During the course of the investigation the statements of Dr. Mrs. Ranganayaki and others were recorded.The trial Court accepted the evidence of Dr. Mrs. Ranaganayaki entirely.The learned Judge turned down the argument that her evidence was not corroborated by pointing out that Dr. Ranganayaki was not a complainant in this case.He negatived the contention based upon the provisions of Government Premises Eviction Act observing that after all the civil and criminal remedies were concurrent remedies and the aims of both of them were entirely different.Before me, at the very outset, Shri Samant, the learned Counsel for the accused, stated specifically and categorically that he was not disputing and was specifically conceding the two factual positions.Secondly, he conceded that her evidence that she was paying Rs. 110/- per month also could not be cavilled at.The learned Counsel specifically proceeded to advance his quite vehement and repeated arguments, made after taking adjournment after adjournment for bringing various authorities on the points, upon the explicit concessions that the findings recorded by the learned Judge about the exclusive possession of Dr. Mrs. Ranganayaki and about the payment of compensation of Rs. 110/- per month to the accused were unimpeachable findings.The concessions, to my mind, were not only justified but unavoidable.I have gone through the entire evidence on record and after going through the evidence of Dr. Mrs. Ranaganayaki as also the other evidence, I find that no room is left for doubt that it is just inconceivable that Dr. Mrs. Ranganayaki would have been living in the premises along with the accused during the relevant period or that she had been allowed to reside in the premises without payment of any monies to the accused.So far as he himself was concerned even if he had received a rupee more than Rs. 110/- from Dr. Ranganayaki, he could possibly, be said to be helping himself with such wrongful gain of a rupee.But in order to cut short the argument.

Cited provisions: Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code