Holding

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution did not prove the falsity of the documents or the essential ingredients of the offences, so the convictions were set aside.

Summary

The case involved a public servant (A‑1) and a contractor (A‑2) who were charged with conspiracy to cheat the Government by preparing inflated bills, false muster rolls and false statements for a canal‑deepening project. The prosecution alleged that the number of labourers and the work done were grossly exaggerated, resulting in a payment of Rs 4,73,537.50 against a purported actual cost of only Rs 32,287.75 (or Rs 76,248.43 as per the lower court). The Supreme Court examined whether the State had discharged the burden of proving each element of the offences under IPC sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the documents were false in material particulars or that the number of labourers was inflated, and that the burden of proof never shifted to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The decision underscores that suspicion alone cannot replace proof and that the prosecution must prove every ingredient of a criminal charge.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the muster rolls and bills were false in material particulars.
Whether the burden of proof in a criminal case ever shifts to the accused.
Whether the alleged inflated labour numbers and work value constitute offences under IPC sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Whether the work was executed departmentally or through a contractor, and the relevance of that distinction to the charges.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B(1), s. 420, s. 468, s. 471
Prevention of Corruption Acts. 5(1)(d), s. 5(2)

Subjects

burden of prooffalse documentscorruptionpublic procurementconspiracy to cheatIndian Penal CodePrevention of Corruption Actacquittalevidence

Judgment

604

A ABDULLAMOHAMMED PAGARKAR
v.
\ STATE (UNION TERRITORY OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU)
~eptember 11, 1979
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.]
B Criminal Trial-Public servant charged with the offence of preparing false
'
muster rolls, inflating wages and other bills-Burden of proof on whom lies.
Indian Penal Code. Ss. 120(B)(I), 420, 468 and 471 & Prevention of Cor-
ruption Acts. 5(1)(d)-Conviction under-Validity of.
A survey carried out by the Port Trust suggested that the canal connecting
two rivers required urgent deepening '8Dd widening to make it navigable for
,
c .barges during the monsoon season when the sea turned rough and navigation
became hazardous across the mouth of the river. The appellant (A-1) who at
that time was the Captain of Ports invited tenders through! press advertisement
and the appellant in the second Appeal (A"2) was the only person who submit-
ted a tender. Since the tender was fb.e only one received, the Lt. Governor l
forwarded it to the Central Government for approval. He did not accept the
suggestion that in view of the urgency, the work might be taken up immediately
D in anticipation of approval. Even so A-1 entrusted the work to A-2 who start-
' ed the work. In the meantime the Government of India directed that the work
should be carried out departmentally. A-1 obtained concurrence of the public
works department for payment of daily wages to workers.
According to the prosecution, the modus operandi adopted by the appellants
was that A-2 actually submitted hand-written statements without his signature
E ou the work done each day specifying the quantity of 'cubic metres of mud
and salt excavated, the number (without names) of male and female labourers
employed, the wages paid to labour at the approved rates and so on. A-1 got
the required statements typed in his office and sent them for the concurrence
of the Finance Department through the concerned department. Thereafter A-1
drew the amonnts and paid cash to A-2 against a regular receipt.

F In course of time the Directorate of Aecounts asked for muster rolls of
labourers employed in the work. A-1 prepared a register and muster rolls.
On a suspicion regarding the genuineness of the muster rolls, the case was
entmsted to the Central Bureau of Investigation which reported that against a
total sum of Rs. 4. 73 odd lacs paid by the Government to A-1 the work done
was not worth more than Rs. 76,247I 43.

G : The Special Judge convicted and sentenced both the appellants on the
ground that they had entered into a conspiracy to cheat the Government in
the matter of execution of the work by presenting inflated bills and receiving
•
against them far greater amountS than had actually been spent and that the
muster rolls produced were false ~ocuments. The Judicial Commissioner up-
held the findings of the Special Judge.
Allowing the appeals,
B HEW : 1. There is no evidence on record that the tender submitted
by A-2 was actually accepted by the Government and that it was on that
basis that the entire work was executed. [612 Bl
A. M. PAGARKAR V. STATE 605

2. Although it may be •correct to say that even' a work which is required A
lo be carried out departmentally can be entrusted to a contractor, in the instant
-case no bills were drawn nor was sanction accorded to any payment on the
basis of any part of the work having been executed through A-2 working as
a contractor. The bills contained the number of labourers engaged and the
.amount pertaining to their wages at the sanctioned rates. No mention was
made in the bills that the work was being carried out through a contractor.
A-2 did not sign any of the bills and his name as well as his connection with •
'the execution of the work remained conspi'CUous by its ·J.bsenee therefrom.
. [612 C·E]
3. The onus of proof of the existence of every ingredient of the charge
·always rests on the· prosecution and never shifts. It wasi incumbent on the
'State to bring out beyond all reasonable doubt that the number of labourers
actually employed in carrying out the work was less th;m that stated in the C
'summaries appended to the bills paid for by the Government. [614 D-E]
,. 4. Although there was a difference between the number of labourers engaged
en each day as Oeposed to by the prosecution witnesses and that shown
in the bills it is not safe to rely on mere impression of the prosecution witnesses
long after the work had been executed. [614 Fl

5. The irregularities committed by the appellant in the execution of the
D
work do furnish a circumstance giving rise to a strong suspicion in regard to
the bonafides of the apPellants in relation ta execution of the work, but mere
suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for proof. It is not possible
to place the burden of proof of innocence on the person accused of a criminal
charge [614 HJ
E
6. In regard to the value of work actually done there was sharp disparity
in the figures arrived at by the courts below. The view of the Cburts below
that it was for -the accused to show that the number of labourers emplOyed
conformed to that shown each day in the summaries attached to bills, is an
approach not sanctioned by law. [616 H-617 Al

7 "/1 he prosecution has not established that -the bills or the summaries were
false in material particulars. Although the· appellants proceeded to execute
the work in flagrant disregard of the relevant rules and ordinary norms of
procedural behaviour of Government officials and contractor-; in the matter
of execution of works undertaken by the Government, such disregard has not been
shown to amount to any of the offences of which the appellants have been
convicted. · The findings of the lower courts no doubt make the suspicion still
stronger but it cannot be said that any of the ingredients of the charge had G
'been made out. [618 C, E-F]

8. Although some of the documents were. prepared at the instance of the
appellants when a demand for them was made by the Acconnts Department,
the charge cannot be sustained in relation to any of its heads, their being
no proof af fabity of any of the entries made in those dao1t.nents. {618 HJ
H
CRJM!)!AI. APPELLATE JURJSD!CTJON : Criminal Appeals Nos. 224
and 268 of 1977.
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.
/
A Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
19-3-77 of the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Goa, Daman and Diu·
at Panaji in Criminal Appeal Nos. 19 and 21 of 1973.
T. Godtwala, P. C. Glwkhale and B. R. Agarwa/;a for the Appel•·
lant in Cr!. A. No. 224/77.
•
• S. Bhandare for the Appellant in Cr!. A. No. 268/77 .
H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KOSHAL, J. By this judgment we shall dispose of Criminal f
Appeals Nos. 224 and 268 of 1977 in both of which a judgment dated'
C 19th of :M;arch, 1977 of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, upholding
the conviction of the appellants and the sentences imposed upon them·
by the trial court is challenged. -.
The appellants' were tried jointly by the Special Judge, Panaji,. 'f
who found them guilty and awarded them punishments as specified ill'
D the table below : ·

Serial Name of the Section of the law under Sentence
number accused which conviction recorded
of the
accused

E (!) (2) (3) (4))

I. Abdulla (a) Section 120B(l) read Rigorous imprisonment
Mohammed with sections 420, 468 for two years and a fine
Pagarkar and 471 of the Indian of Rs: 500/-, the sentence·
Pena] Code as also sec· in default of payment of'
tion 5(1)(d) of the Pre- fine being rigorous im-
F vention of Corruption prisonment for one
Act. month.
(b) Sections 420 and 468 Rigorous imprlsonmentfor·
and section 109 read two years and a fine of'
with sections 468 and Rs. 500/-, - the sentence
471 of the Indian Penal in default of payment or
G Code. fine being rigorous im,.;
prisonment for · one
month.
•
(c) Section 5(2) read with Rigorous imprisonment
section 5(l)(d) of the for two years and a fine
Prevention of Corrup~ of rupees two lakhs, the.·
tion Act. sentence in default of:
H payment of fine being'
rigorous imprisonment~
for eighteen months.

/
A. M. PAGARKAR v. STATE (Koshal, J.) 607

/'. A
(J) (2) (3) (4)

2. Moreshwar (a) Section 120B(l) read I Rigorous imprisonment
Hari with sections 420, 468, I for two years and a ·fine
M•hatme 471 and 109 of the I of Rs. 500/·, the sentence
• • Indian Penal Code as I in default of payment of
B
\ well as section 5(1)(d) I fine being rigorous im-
~._ of the Prevention of }- prisonment
Corruption Act. \ month .
for one

(b) Sectioh 5(1)(d) of the I

' Prevention of Corrup- I
tion Act read with sec- I
tion 109 of the Indian I
Penal Code. J
c
(c) Sections 420, 468 and Rigorous imprisonment
•· 471 read with section for two years and a fine
I 09 of the In~ Penal of Rs. 500/-, the sentence
Code. in default of payment of
fine being rigorous im-
-D
prisonment for one
month.
(d) Section 5(2) read with Rigorous imprisonment
section 5(l)(d) of the for two years and a fine
\ Prevention of Corrup- of rupees two lakhs, the
• tion Act aild section 109 sentence in default of
of the Indian Penal payment of fine being E
Code. rigorous imprisonment
· for eighteen months.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment in the case of each of
the accused were directed to rnn concurrently. It may be stated
here that the charges framed against them under sections 467 and
4 77A of the Indian Penal Code were not found proved and they were F
acquitted of the same.
2. The prosecution case has to be set out at some length and
may be stated thus. In the year 1965 the appellant Abdulla
Moha=ed Pagarkar (hereil)after referred to as A-1) was holding
the post of Surveyor-in-Charge, Mercantile Marine Department, G
Marmagoa as also of the Captain of Ports, Panaji. In his capacity
last-mentioned, the work of deepening and widening the Kumbarjua
canal which connec!s river Zuari with river Mandovi required his
urgent attention as the canal had to be made navigable at low tide .
for the use of mine barges during monsoon season when the sea
becomes rough and it is hazardous to navigate across the mouth of R
the river Mandovi at Aguda. A survey of the canal had been
carried out by the Marmagoa Port 'Trust and its report had been
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A submitted to the concerned authorities. Tenders were invited by
A-1 through an advertisement in the press and appellant Moreshwar
Hari Mahatme (hereinafter described as A-2) was the only person
to present one, which he' did on the 5th of January, 1966. As the
cost of the work exceeded rupees one lakh and the tender was a
IB
solitary one, the Lieut. Governor forwarded it to the Central Govern- •
ment. for approval and did not accept a suggestion made by the
Secretary to the Industries and Labour Department (to be hereinafter
called I.L.D.) that the work ~ started immediately in anticipation r
'

of the said approval. Nevertheless A-1 entrusted the work to A-2

c
who started executing it on March 15, 1966. No approval of the
tender was received from the Government of India who directed,
however, that the work be carried out departmentally.
'
Through a letter dated 16th of May, 1966 (Exhibit P-7), the said
Secretary informed A-1,..that as the work was to be executed depart-
y
mentally the conditions laid down in Rules 13 3 and 141 of the General
Financial Rules (G.F.R.) had to be fulfilled and directed him to obtain
D the concurrence of the Public Works Department (P.W.D. for short) for
the various rates mentioned in a bill which A-1 had submitted earlier
for payment in connection with the work. Such concurrence was
obtained by A-1 on May 26, 1966, to payment of daily wages at the
rates of Rs. 4.50 and Rs. 3.00 per head for male and female labourers
E respectively although the prevailing P.W.D. rates were Rs. 3.50 and
Rs. 2.00 respectively (Exhibit P-9).
The two. appellants entered into a conspiracy to cheat the Govem-
ment in relation to the execution of the work. A-2 would submit
occasionally to A-1 hand-written statements of the work done each
day, specifying therein the details of quantity in cubic metres of the
F mud and salt excavated, the number (without the names) of male and
. female labourers employed, the cost of labour in accordance with the
approved rates, charges for the country craft employed, etc. None of
these statements bore the signature of A-2. A-1 would get typed copies
of these statements prepared in his office and would send one of such
copies under his own signature to the I.L.D. for sanction which used to
be accorded after the concurrence of the Finance Department had been
obtained. Thereafter a contingent bill would be prepared in the office
of A-1 and in that bill A-1 would certify under his own signature that
•
the work was carried out departmentally in compliance with Rule 141
of the G.F.R. Each of such bills accompanied by the relevant copy of
the statement of work signed by A-1 would be forwarded to the
JI Accounts Department which would issue a cheque in favour of A-1
who would realise the amount of the cheque and pay it in cash to A-2
against a regular receipt.
A. M. PAGARKAR v. STATE (Koshal, J.) 609

A stage was· reached when the Directorate of Accounts objected
to the payment of the bills and asked for muster rolls of labourers
employed for execution of the work. A-1 then had prepared register
exhibit P-37 and muster roll exhibit P-36 ou the basis of entries in a
copy book (exhibit P-47) which had ·been supplied to A-1 by A-2.
The entries in the muster roll having been found to be suspicious, the
case was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation who found
that, as against a total amount of Rs. 4,73,537.50 paid by the Govern-
••
ment to A-1 and by him to A-2, the work done was worth no more
than Rs. 76,247.43. It was this conclusion which led to the prosecution
of the appellants.

' 3. Now we shall give a resume of the defence stand taken by A-1.
He held numerous offices in addition to that of the Captain of Ports'
and as such he had to perform multifarious duties while the staff placed
c

at his disposal was grossly inadequate by any standards so much so
that he did not even have an Accounts Officer. As the work of deepen-
ing and widening the Kumbarjua canal needed urgent attention,
tenders for its execution were called and A-2 was found to be the only D
tenderer. A-1 was assured by the Secretary, I.L.D., that the necessary
order approving the tender would soon be forthcoming and that the
execution of the work should be taken in hand immediately in antici-
pation of orders. The Assistaµt Marine Surveyor, Shri . D'Souza
(PW.4) was instructed to personally supervise the work which was E
started on the 15th of March, 1966. By the end of April, 1966, A-1
was told that the work should be executed departmentally by engaging
Jabour and not through A-2. However that was not possible under
the circumstances and the work proceeded as before. Shri D'Souza
(PW. 4) used to check the volume and the kind of material .excavated
daily and to make entries in bis notebook accordingly, When objection F
was taken by the Directorate of Accounts at the end of the financial
year to the passing of the bills on the ground that muster rolls were
not being maintained, A-1 made enquiries from Shri D'Souza (PW 4)
and learnt that A-2 bad maintained a gang-wise muster roll on the
basis of which documents were prepared by Shri D'Souza (PW 4)
under the orders of A-•l and were submitted to the I.L.D. The work G
was. executed in conform\ty with the bills submitted by A-1 to the
Government. In any case, A-1 acted in good faith and if any of the
bills did not conform to facts the reason must be that he had been
cheated by A-2.
4. The stand taken by A-2 in defence was more or less the same. B
He averred however that the bills were prepared not on the basis of
labour engaged but on the volume of work done, that he never sup-
610 SUPREME COURT Rl!PORTS [1980I l s.c.R.

·A plied any labour to A-1, that the total material excavated amounted
to 35,516.70 cubic metres, that there was no question of keeping any
muster or acquittance roll as the work was executed by the labourers
on piece-rate basis and that the average number of laboure~working
per day for execution of the work was about.•700.
B 5. From the documentary evidence placed on the record at the
trial the learned Special Judge found the following facts proved :
..
(a) Under directions o( A-1 the execution of the work
was started by A-2 before the tender submitted by
the latter, which had been forwarded by th~ Lieut.
Governor for approval to the Government of India,
c had been accepted.
(b) Through a letter dated the 16th May, 1967
(exhibit P-7) the Secretary, I.L.D., directed A-1 to
have the work: executed departmentally in accordance

D
with the conditions laid down in Rules 141 and 133
of the G.F.R. and to obtain concurrence of the
r
P.W.D. to various rates applicable to the work.
Such concurrence was actually obtained by A-1
(Letters exhibits P-8 .and' P-9).
(c) The work was being carried out by A-2 with his own
labour and no labour on muster roll was employed by
E
A-1.
(d) A-2 prepared statements of work or summaries which
he submitted to A-1 who would then sign typed
copies 1thereof and forward the same for sanction to
the l.L.J?. On receipt of such sanction· A-1 would
F prepare contingent bills and sign each of them along
with a certificate that the work was being carried out
departmentally in accordance with Rule 141 of the
G.F.R. as per the attached summary. Each bill would
then be submitted along with the summary to the
. ,..:;
Accounts Department which issued the corresponding
G cheque to A-1. The. amount of the cheque was then •
realised by A-1 and paid over to A-2 under a receipt.
(e) Muster roll exhibit P-36 for the period from
. 15-3-1966 to 6-4-1967 was prepared in the office
of A-1 and under bis directions at a stretch aftec
H the completion of the work and on the basis of
exhibit P-47 which A-2 bad maintained._ Register
exhibit P-37 was similarly prepared on the basis of
A. M. PAGARKAR v. s:rATE (Koshti, J.) 611

written statements containing details of labour A '
employed and submitted by A-2.

6. The learned Special Judge further arrived at the findings given
below from the oral evidence produced before him : -
(i) A-2 was fully aware that his tender had not been 8
.. accepted by the Government and that A-1 had been
directed to carry ont the work departmentally.
i, (ii) The amount really spent by A-2 in execution of the
!,' work was no more than Rs. 32,287.75 against which
he manoeuvred, with the assistance of A-1, to receive
\ a sum of Rs. 4,73,537.50 from the Government. . C
(iii) None of the bills could have blen sancdoned for
payment by the Accounts Department bnt for the
certificate appended by A-1 to each of them that the
work was being carried out departmentally under
Rule 141 of the G.F.R. D ·

7. From the above findings the learned Special Judge concluded
that the two accused had entered into a conspiracy to cheat the Gov-
ernment in the matter of the execution of the work by presenting
inflated bills and receiving against them far greater amounts than had
actually been spent, that muster rolls ultimately produced to support E
f the bills contained false averments and were forged documents, and
that A-1 was fully aware that the certificate regarding the work being
carried out departmentally in accordance with Rule 141 of the G.F.R.
and appended to each of the bills was false. It was also proved to his
satisfaction that muster roll exhibit P-36 and register exhibit P-37 were
dishonestly or fraudulently prepared by A-1 to support false bills and
that this was done with the assistance of A-2. The amount really spent
on the work done having been found by the learned Special Judge to
be only Rs. 32,287.75, he held that the Government had been cheated
into an excess payment of Rs. 4,41,249.75.
It was in these premises that the learned Special Judge convicted, G
and sentenced the two accused as stated earlier.
8. The learned Judicial Commissioner upheld the findings of fact
arrived at by the learned Special Judge except the one relating to the
amount actually spent in execution of the work which, in his opinion,
was Rs. 76,247.43 as made out by the entries in books exhibits P-79 R
a
to P-82 which were recovered as result of a search of the house of
A-2. The conviction recorded against and the sentences imposed upon
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980j 1 S.C.R..

A the appellants by the learned Special Judge were therefore confirmed
by the learned Judicial Con:imissioner.

9. On behalf of the appellants it was vehemently contended before·
us by their learned counsel that the tender submitted by Ac2 was

.- actually accepted by the Government and that it was on that basis that
the entire work was executed. kt support of this argument there is not
a shred of evidence on the record and we have therefore no hesitation
in rejecting it straightway. In exhibit P-7 there is a ·clear intimation
to A-1 that the work was to be carried ouf departmentally and that
therefore he should obtain concurrence of the P.W.D. to the rates
applicable to various items of work. Faced with this situation learned
c counsel for A-1 submitted that even under Rule 141 of the G.F.R.
any work to be carried out departmentally could be entrusted to a.
contractor and in that submission he is right. However, it carries his
case no further inasmuch as no bills were drawn nor was any sanction
accorded to any payment on the basis of any part of the work having
been executed through A-2 working as a contractor. On the other hand
D
those bills contained the number of la~ourers engaged for the work and
the amounts claimed pertained to thetr wages at the sanctioned rates.
In fact no bill contains even a mention of the fact that any contractor
was executing the work or that A-2 was anywhere in the picture. Add
to it the fact that A-2 did not submit any signed bills or statements
E either to A-1 or to the I.L.D. or, for that matter, to the Directorate of
Accounts. In so far as correspondence between A-1 on the one hand /

and Government departments on the other is concerned, the name of
A-2 and ltis connection with the execution of the work remained con- r
·spicuous by its absence except insofar as the tender submitted by him
was concerned and that tender, as already stated, never became effec-
F tive by its acceptance by any department or office of the Government.
The position which the two appellants therefore took in no uncertain
terms throughout the period during which the work was executed was
·that it was being handled directly by the Department and not through
any contractor. A,ny plea based on its execution through A-2 as a con-
, tractor must therefore be repelled.
G
10. A more serious argument put forward in support of the appeals
was that the work actually executed had not really been shown to be
worth anything less than the amount paid for it to. A-2, i.e.,
Rs. 4,73;537.50. The attack on the findings to the contrary arrived at
by the two courts below consists of the submission that they are based
B really on' mere conjectures rather than on evi?ence. And this attack
appears to us, on a consideration of the material on the record, to be
well founded, as we shall presently show. '
I
A. M. PAGARKAR v. STATE (Kos/uil, !.) 6 l:l

11. The amount of Rs. 4,73,537.50 was received by A-1 against 4 A
bills the details of which appear below :

Serial Exhibit mark on the bill Amount of the bill
numbe,r·

Rs .. .,,
;
~
1. P-13 98.294 ·SO
' 2. P-18 82,811 ·00
1 3,
4.
P-24
P-28
84,847 ·00
2,07,585 ·00

'
Total 4,73,537 ·50
c
As already stated, each of the bills above mentioned was
accompanied by a document detailing the number of labourers
· employed. Other particulars such as sex of and rate of wages payable
to each labourer also appeared in the document which · has been
described as a "summary". It is admitted on all hands that each bil1 D
-conformed to the corresponding "summary" but was not accompanied,
when submitted or passed, by any vouchers. The case propounded on
behalf of the State is that the summaries contained false entries so that
the number of labourers actually employed for the execution ·of the
work was grossly inflated and that it was on that account that the
appellants tvere able to draw moneys from the State Treasury far in E
·excess of those actually paid by them for the execution of the work.
On the other hand, the claim on behalf of the appellants is that no
evidence at all is available to indicate that any of the entries made in
the summaries as also in the bills did not conform to facts.

12. The learned Special Judge analysed the oral evidence of PWs. F
1, 4,' 7, 8. 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 and observed that the number of
i.abourers includirig the crew of the country craft working at all the
~· .., sites where dredging was in progress during the period in question
· · varied, according to those witnesses, from 80 to 200. He further noted
the fact that in the statement recorded under section 342 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure ·even A-1 had taken the stand that the number G
of labourers found by him working at the canal, whenever he visited
the site, varied between 200 and 250. He then proceeded to quantify
·the amount of money paid to the labourers at Rs. 32,287.75 with the
following observations :
"From the receipts produced by the p~osecntion witnesses Nos. 7, · B
8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 it is seen that the amount
paid by A.2 to the labourers ·and country craft owners is to the tune
3-625 SCI/79
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c.R.

' .'A of Rs. 32,287.75. There was no suggestion of the Advocate of A.2
to the Investigation Officer that besides the docn.ments produced by
A.2, there were other receipts which were not attached by the Investi-
gating Officer and produced by the prosecution. The only contention
of A.2 appears to be that, besides the amounts proved by the receipts

• above, there were other amounts paid to the labourers for which
receipts were not collected. All the prosecution witnesses above had
denied the suggestion of A.2 that, besides the amounts for which they
have passed receipts, there were other amounts received by them for
which they have not passed the receipts. Only P.W. 14 and P.W. 16
in their cross examination, had admitted that besides the amounts· for
which they had issued receipts, they were also paid for some work on
salary basis for which they were not issued receipts. These amounts,
however, could not, according to me, go to thousands of rupees. Any
how, it was for A.2 to prove that he had spent amounts besides those
proved by the prosecution _which A.2 had failed to do." •
Now this is hardly a proper approach to the requirements of proof
D in relation to a criminal charge. The onus of proof of the existence
of every ingredient of the charge always rests on the prosecution and
aever shifts. It was incumbent therefore on the State to bring out,
beyond all reasonable doubt, that the number of labourers actually
employed in carrying out the work was less than that stated in the
summaries appended to the bills paid for by the Government. It is
E
true that the total number of labourers working on a single day has
lleen put by the prosecution witnesses mentioned ·above at 200 or
less, while according to the summaries appended to the bills it varied '
on an average from 370 to 756. But then is it safe to rely on the
mere impression of the prosecution witnesses, testified to long after the
F work had been executed, about the actual number of labourers employ-
ed from time to time? The answer must obviously be in the negative
and the justification for this answer is furnished by the variation in
the number of labour employed from witness to witness.· ·
The mind of the learned Special Judge in c<iming to the finding
G about the value of the work done being no more than Rs. 32,287.75
appears to have been influenced by the gross irregnlarities committed
by the appellants in the execution of the work, specially their failure
to prepare vouchers relating to all the payments as also a proper mus-
ter roll. These irregnlarities no doubt furnish a circumstance giving
rise to a strong suspicion in regard to the bona fides of the appellants
B in the matter of the execution of the work but ~uspicion, however
strong, cannot be a substitute for proof. And it is certainly not per-
missible to place the burden Qf proof of innocence on the person accus-
A. M. PAGARKAR v. STATE (Koshal, J.) ' 61 5

ed of a criminal charge. However, that is precisely what the Special A
,, Judge appears to have done while observing that "it was for A.2 to
prove that he had spent amounts besides those proved by the prosecu-
tion which A.2 had failed to do."

13. The finding of the learned Judicial Commissioner on the point
suffers from a similar defect. After examining the oral evidepce in D
relation to it he observed : ,
"The evidence of these witnesses clearly indicated that
the average total number of labourers working in the Canal
per day were 100 to 160. Taking an average of 123 fabou-
rers per day, out of which, on the basis of the statements c
furnished by A.2, less than 12000 would be males at the rate
of Rs. 4.50 and a little more than 13000 females at the rate
of Rs. 3.50, we have roughly a total sum of Rs .. 80,000/-
spent on labour. This more or less tallies with the amount
mentioned in the vouchers. Shri S. V. Naik has on behalf
of A.2 suggested in cross-examination of these witnesses that D
the average number of workers working in the canal per day
was 350 to 400. Even if we accept this figure the total
amount payable on account of the labourers employed would
be Rs. 3,00,000.00, but the accused have collected a sum of
Rs. 4,73,537.50."
\
He differed with the learned Special Judge on the point. of the
value of the work actually done and in that behalf he has reasoned
thus in another part of the judgment :
"No account books or receipts were produced by A.1
or A.2 to the Government in support of the contingent bills
F
and of the claims for the amounts which they received.
No· account books were produced or shown by any. one of
them. It is not the case of A.2 that he did not receive ·
receipts for the payments made to the labourers, nor is it
his 11ase that he did not have arty account books regarding
the work. In fact, it would be unbelievable that a busi-
... G
nessman or a labour-supply contractor should not keep ac-
count books or should not receive receipts for payments
made. It is not the case of A.2 or A.1 that they had lost
• > the account books or the receipts. When a search was
effected of the residence of A.2, receipt books Exh. P. 79
and P. 82 and some books relating to the work were seiz- n
ed. When a question was put to A. 2 under S. 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding this evidence,
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c-R.

--~A
his answer was that neither the receipt books nor the books
~I
were account books. The receipts in the books are in
serial numbers from 101 to 700. In the first search taken
receipts bearing serial Nos. 151 to 200 for the period from
14-4-66 to 25-1-68 were missing. These receipts were all
in one book, namely, Exh. P.82. Ex. P.82 was seized on
B a subsequent search. Another book Ex. P.82 was also
found in subsequent search. This book bears no serial
nulJ!bers. All these three books cons\itute Ex.P-79, 80 and
P.82 containing receipts relating to the work. The total

c
amount mentioned in the receipts relating to the work was
Rs. 76,248.43. A.2 has not stated that he had vouchers
for any other money paid by him nor has he produced any
,
such vouchers. P.Ws No. 7 to 10 and 14 to 21, twelve in
all, who did the work of excavation in the canal have sta-
ted that they passed receipts for· all moneys received by
them. When suggestions were made to some of them that y
D some payments were made to them without receipts, they
denied the fact. The other books seized, namely, Ex. P. 81
collectively, were, according to A.2, cash books. However,
serial No. 23/Il item No. 35, which was part of Ex. P. 81
is definitely an account book and not a cash book.
In any event, A.2 does not rely on any of these books nor has
E he said anything to show that any payments were recorded
therein, which are other than the payments shown in Ex.
P. 79, 80 and 82. A.2 did no\ examine any workers who
worked in the canal and who, according to him, had receiv-
ed any payments which were not receipted for. It is evi-
dence from Ex.P.79 to P.82 that some moneys spent in the.
F work were receipted and accounted for. Considering all
these facts, the question that A.2 might haye paid any
amounts without receiving receipts can be ruled out. Ex.
P.79 to P.82 together with the other evidence on record
support the version of the prosecution that the total amount
G of work done by the accnsed did not exceed Rs. 76,248.43."
We may at o~ce state that there is no evidence on the record to
indicate that the books seized from the premises of A.2 contained
entries about all the payments made by him to th~ labour employed
for the execution of the work and that is a fact the correctness of
which we see no reason to presume. The danger of assumptions
H of the type made by the two courts below is highlighted by the _dis-
parity in the figures which they reached in relation to the amount of
the value above mentioned. Each had his own way of looking at
A. M. PAGARKAR v. STATE (Koshal, !.) 617

it; but then the grievous error into which they fell was that thel' A
thought that it was for the accused to show that the number, of labour-
ers employed conformed to that shown for each day in the summa-
ries attached to the bills. And that is an approach not sanctioned
by law.

14. In coming to the finding under consideration the learned
l Judicial CommiS1Sioner also took into consid~ation the deposition
of Lasli Rupert Donaud (PW-6) who surveyed the canal in Septem-
ber, 1965 and again in May, 1969, i.e., both before and after tlie
work had been executed and in that connection prepared. two docu-
ments, viz., exhibits P-55 and P-66, detailing his observations on the c
two occasions respectively. According to the witness the volume of
solid~ to.be dredged "to a depth of 10 feet below datam equals 5858
cubic metres". This figure is roughly one-fifth of 28,324-70 cubic
( metres which is the volume of total material alleged by the appellants
to have been actually removed during the execution of the work and
paid for. The argument advanced on behalf of the State that the D
. disparity in the two figures itself shows that the claim of the appel-
lants is false, although attractive on the face of it, is not acceptable
to us on a deeper consideration. According to PW-6, the soundings
taken on .the two occasions were almost identical from which it was
sought to be deduced that practically no work at all was done, which
is not the case of either party. This shows that either the contents E
of the two documents represented observations which did not conform
to facts or which, in any case, conld not be taken as a safe guide
for calculating the actual number of labourers employed during the
execHtion of the work which was carried out between the two surveys.
Besides, our attention has not been drawn by learned counsel for the
State to any evidence from which it may be inferred that the portions · F
·of the canal where soundings were taken by PW-6 represented the
entine length of the canal in relation to its breadth and depth. Again,
the silting process which is a continuous one, cannot be lost sight of.
• In between the point of time when the first survey was undertaken by
PW-6 in 1965 and the end of the period during which the work was
G
executed, a Jot of silt must have settled at the bed of the canal and
dredged out which would surely mean a considerable increase in the
work actually done over the figure of 5858 cubic metres resulting
from his estimate. Also siltation may have occurred and, for aught
one knows, to a considerable exten~ between the completion of the
work and the point of time when PW-6 took the soundings in 1969. H
· Allowance has also to be made for the state of the tide when the
surveys were undertaken. As pointed out by the witness hiQ'(Sclf, the
618. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l s.c.R.

A soundings of 1969 were not taken at the lowest tide. As it is, the ·'"'\
witness had to make the following admission when he_ was asked if
he could say on the basis of his two surveys whether any dredging
was done in between :
"If some dredging is done during the year 66 and 67 in
B the Canal and the soundings are ta14en in 1969 if it is al-
most identical to the soundings of 1965 I would not be able
to say whether dredging was done in the Canal or not .... "
We consider it very unsafe, in this state of the evidence to agree
· with the lea~ed Judicial Commissioner that the disparity between the ,
estimate arrived at by PW-6 and the volume of material claimed to
c have been dredged proved "that the documents on which moneys
were collected by the accused are false". It appears to us that in
coming to this conclusion, he was also influenced by the factors which ~·
raised a strong suspicion against the appellants.
15. Learhed counsel for the State to buttress the evidence which
D we have just above discussed with the findings recorded by the learned
Special Judge and detailed as items (a) to (e) in paragraph 5 and
items (i) and (iii) in paragraph 6 of this judgment. Those findings
were armed by the learned Judicial Commissioner and we are clearly
of the opinion, for reasons which need not be re-stated here, that they
were correctly arrived at. But those findings merely make out that the
E
appellants proceeded to execute the work in flagrant disregard of the
relevant Rules of the G.F.R. and even of ordinary norms of procedural
behaviour of Government officials and contractors in the matter of
execution of works undertaken by the Government. Such disregard
however has not been shown to us to amount to any of the offences
F of which the appellants have been convicted. The said findings no
doubt make the suspicion to which wfi have above adverted still stronger
but that is where the matter rests and it cannot be said that any of the
ingredients of the charge have been made1 out.
Apart fro'm the findings and evidence referred to earlier in this
paragraph, no material has been. brought to our notice on behalf of
G
the State snch as would indicate that the bills or the summaries in
question were false in any material particular.
16. Although it does appear that quite a few of the documents
admittedly prepared by or at the instance of the appellants in connec-
tion with the execution of the work came into existence not while the
n work was in progress but only later when a demand for them was
made by the Accounts Department, the charge cannot be sustained in /
relation to any of its heads, there being no proof of the falsity of any
i ::
I-

.... M; PAGARKAR v, STATE (Koshal, l.) 619

of the entries made in those documents. In the result, therefore, we A
accept both the appeals, set aside the conviction recorded against and
the sentences imposed upon each of the appellants and acquit them
of the charge in its entirety.

N.V.K. Appeals allowed• •

•