Case: State Of Orissa &amp; Anr Vs. Murlidhar Jena

enquiry held by the Tribunal is not governed by the strict and technical rules of the Evidence Act. Rule 7(2) of the relevant rules provides that in conducting the enquiry the tribunal shall be guided by rules of equity and natural justice and shall not be bound by formal rules relating to procedure and evidence. Therefore, in deciding the question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in treating Ex 7 as a rough cash book kept for and at the instance of Mr. Patnaik we must take into account all the relevant facts and circumstances as the Tribunal did; the time and place of the search and seizure of the two account books, the fact that. Mr. Patnaik attested the seizure of the said books, the nature of the entries to be found in the two respective books and the nature of the evidence given by Sahni himself. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Ex. 7 and Ex. 6 constituted co-related books of account and that Ex 6 copied from Ex. 7 entries in regard to legitimate dealings and did not deliberately copy other entries which had reference to illegitimate transactions. In this connection it would be relevant to recall that the search and seizure was effected because it was reported that Mr. Patnaik kept different books of account and that his kutcha books would show illegal gratifications given to the respondent. Therefore, if having regard to all the facts and circumstances the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it could rely on Ex 7 and in that connection incidentally referred to the statement made by Sahni in investigation after it was duly tendered, proved and exhibited in the case, we do not think that it was open to the High Court to hold that the impugned findings of the Tribunal were based on no evidence. 13. In this connection we may incidentally refer to the feet that the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the purchase of the fan can in a sense be justified apart from Ex 7. The cash memos issued by the vendor on two occasions which showed the respondent to be the purchaser have been carefully examined by the Tribunal, and after rejecting the explanation offered by the respondent the Tribunal has held that the purchase was made by Mr. Patnaik for the benefit of the respondent. Proof of this charge would thus appear to be based alternatively on evidence other than Ex 7; and if that is so, even if Ex 7 is not properly proved there would be no justification to interfere with the final conclusion of the Tribunal and with the ultimate order of dismissal passed against the respondent; but we do not think that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in holding that Ex. 7 could be taken into account having regard to the relevant circumstances and facts proved in this case. 14. There are two other considerations to which reference must be made. In its judgment the High Court has observed that the oral evidence admittedly did not support the case against the respondent. The use of the word "admittedly, in our opinion, amounts somewhat to an overstatement; and the discussion that follows this overstatement in the judgment indicates an attempt to appreciate the evidence which it would ordinarily not be open to the High Court to do in writ proceedings. The same comment falls to be made in regard to the discussion in the judgment of the High Court where it considered the question about the interpretation of the word" Chatrapur Saheb." The High Court has observed that in the absence of a clear evidence on the point the inference drawn by the Tribunal that Chatrapur Saheb meant the respondent would not be justified."This observation clearly indicates that the High Court was attempting to appreciate evidence. The judgment of the Tribunal shows that it considered several facts and circumstances in dealing with the question about the identity of the individual indicated by the expression "Chatrapur Saheb." Whether or not the evidence on which the Tribunal relied was satisfactory and sufficient for justifying its conclusion would not fall to be considered in a writ petition. That in effect is the approach initially adopted by the High Court at the beginning of its judgment. However, in the subsequent part of the judgment the High Court appears to have been persuaded to appreciate the evidence for itself and that, in our opinion, is not reasonable or legitimate. 15. The High Court has also commented on the fact that the Tribunal should have examined Barjorji before relying upon statements made by him in his letter addressed to Mr. Patnaik. There is some force in this argument; but the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the purchase of the Austin car is based on several other considerations all of which have been duly proved. In fact about the main features of this transaction there was no serious controversy between the parties. The parties were at issue on the question as to the effect of these broad features but that, clearly is a question of fact which fell within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have carefully, considered the reasons given by the High Court in its judgment under appeal but we are unable to accept the contention pressed before us by Mr. Sinha, for the respondent, that the conclusion of the High Court is right when it says that the Tribunals findings against the respondent were based on no evidence. Whether or not the High Court or this court agrees with the conclusions of the Tribunal is another matter. The question to be considered is whether the said conclusions could be set aside on the narrow ground that they are not supported by any evidence. In our opinion, it is difficult to accept the view that there is no evidence in support of the conclusions recorded by the Tribunal against the respondent.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. In accepting the respondents contention that the impugned findings were not supported by any evidence the High Court has been impressed by two considerations. The first consideration is that the High Court took the view that in relying upon the evidence adduced at the stage of investigation the Tribunal had gone back upon the assurance solemnly given by it to the respondent that the said evidence would not be relied upon against him; and the second consideration is that the Tribunal was not justified in relying on the entries in the rough account book Ex 7 alleged to have been kept by Mr. Patnaik because the said document had not been proved10. It appears that on December 16, 1954 the Secretary of the Tribunal told the respondent that the statements of witnesses given before the Enforcement, if any, were not in the custody of the Tribunal and would not be taken into account in the consideration of his case, and so the question of giving him copies of the evidence recorded by the Enforcement did not arise. This was in reply to the respondents application for copies of the said statements. A similar reply was again given to him on January 4, 1955. The respondent was told that the Tribunal could not supply copies of documents which were not in its possession. It is, however, necessary to point out that on January 18, 1956 the respondent was told that though the Tribunal was unable to give him copies of documents not in the possession of the Tribunal he would be supplied with such copies if and when the original documents were exhibited before the Tribunal. Thus there can be no doubt that what the Tribunal told the respondent was that it was not possible for the Tribunal to give him copies of documents unless the said documents were produced before it and he was in fact given an assurance that he would be given such copies as soon as the said documents were tendered before it. The High Court thought that the replies sent by the Secretary of the Tribunal to the respondent contained an assurance that the evidence recorded by the Enforcement in the course of the preliminary investigation would in no case be used against him. Such a construction, in our opinion, is plainly inconsistent with the terms of the assurance given. In fact as we have just indicated, the Tribunal clearly told the respondent that as soon as the documents were tendered before it he would be given copies which necessarily meant that some of the evidence recorded in the investigation may be tendered and in that case copies of the same would be given to the respondent11. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal occasion did arise for tendering a previous statement of the witness Sahni. We have already seen that Sahni went back upon his earlier statement in which he had admitted that he had written Ex. 7, and so that statement was put to him and exhibited in the case. If the respondent thought it necessary to obtain its cony he could have easily obtained it and could have even asked for an adjournment to enable him to cross-examine the witness on that statement. He did not do so for the obvious reason that the witness was supporting the respondent and it was with the object of helping him that he had gone back upon his earlier statement. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court was in error in assuming that the Tribunal had given an unqualified assurance to the respondent and had gone back upon it. The first ground on which the High Court was thus inclined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal is without any substance12. That takes us to the second ground which has reference to the proof of Ex. 7 Technically and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act it may be true to say that Sahni having gone back upon his earlier statement there is no evidence to prove who wrote Ex. 7; but in dealing with this point it is necessary to bear in mind that the enquiry held by the Tribunal is not governed by the strict and technical rules of the Evidence Act. Rule 7(2) of the relevant rules provides that in conducting the enquiry the tribunal shall be guided by rules of equity and natural justice and shall not be bound by formal rules relating to procedure and evidence. Therefore, in deciding the question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in treating Ex 7 as a rough cash book kept for and at the instance of Mr. Patnaik we must take into account all the relevant facts and circumstances as the Tribunal did; the time and place of the search and seizure of the two account books, the fact that. Mr. Patnaik attested the seizure of the said books, the nature of the entries to be found in the two respective books and the nature of the evidence given by Sahni himself. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Ex. 7 and Ex. 6 constituted co-related books of account and that Ex 6 copied from Ex. 7 entries in regard to legitimate dealings and did not deliberately copy other entries which had reference to illegitimate transactions. In this connection it would be relevant to recall that the search and seizure was effected because it was reported that Mr. Patnaik kept different books of account and that his kutcha books would show illegal gratifications given to the respondent. Therefore, if having regard to all the facts and circumstances the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it could rely on Ex 7 and in that connection incidentally referred to the statement made by Sahni in investigation after it was duly tendered, proved and exhibited in the case, we do not think that it was open to the High Court to hold that the impugned findings of the Tribunal were based on no evidence13. In this connection we may incidentally refer to the feet that the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the purchase of the fan can in a sense be justified apart from Ex 7. The cash memos issued by the vendor on two occasions which showed the respondent to be the purchaser have been carefully examined by the Tribunal, and after rejecting the explanation offered by the respondent the Tribunal has held that the purchase was made by Mr. Patnaik for the benefit of the respondent. Proof of this charge would thus appear to be based alternatively on evidence other than Ex 7; and if that is so, even if Ex 7 is not properly proved there would be no justification to interfere with the final conclusion of the Tribunal and with the ultimate order of dismissal passed against the respondent; but we do not think that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in holding that Ex. 7 could be taken into account having regard to the relevant circumstances and facts proved in this case14. There are two other considerations to which reference must be made. In its judgment the High Court has observed that the oral evidence admittedly did not support the case against the respondent. The use of the word "admittedly, in our opinion, amounts somewhat to an overstatement; and the discussion that follows this overstatement in the judgment indicates an attempt to appreciate the evidence which it would ordinarily not be open to the High Court to do in writ proceedings. The same comment falls to be made in regard to the discussion in the judgment of the High Court where it considered the question about the interpretation of the word" Chatrapur Saheb." The High Court has observed that in the absence of a clear evidence on the point the inference drawn by the Tribunal that Chatrapur Saheb meant the respondent would not be justified."This observation clearly indicates that the High Court was attempting to appreciate evidence. The judgment of the Tribunal shows that it considered several facts and circumstances in dealing with the question about the identity of the individual indicated by the expression "Chatrapur Saheb." Whether or not the evidence on which the Tribunal relied was satisfactory and sufficient for justifying its conclusion would not fall to be considered in a writ petition. That in effect is the approach initially adopted by the High Court at the beginning of its judgment. However, in the subsequent part of the judgment the High Court appears to have been persuaded to appreciate the evidence for itself and that, in our opinion, is not reasonable or legitimate15. The High Court has also commented on the fact that the Tribunal should have examined Barjorji before relying upon statements made by him in his letter addressed to Mr. Patnaik. There is some force in this argument; but the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the purchase of the Austin car is based on several other considerations all of which have been duly proved. In fact about the main features of this transaction there was no serious controversy between the parties. The parties were at issue on the question as to the effect of these broad features but that, clearly is a question of fact which fell within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have carefully, considered the reasons given by the High Court in its judgment under appeal but we are unable to accept the contention pressed before us by Mr. Sinha, for the respondent, that the conclusion of the High Court is right when it says that the Tribunals findings against the respondent were based on no evidence. Whether or not the High Court or this court agrees with the conclusions of the Tribunal is another matter. The question to be considered is whether the said conclusions could be set aside on the narrow ground that they are not supported by any evidence. In our opinion, it is difficult to accept the view that there is no evidence in support of the conclusions recorded by the Tribunal against the respondent.