Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, 1956 AIR 404

SHAMBU NATH MEHRA v. STATE OF AJMER

ISSUE:

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused fraudulently claimed travel allowances without paying for second-class railway fares?
Whether Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applied, shifting the burden of proving payment to the accused?

RULE:

Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot shift this responsibility unless facts are “especially within the knowledge” of the accused.
Section 106, Indian Evidence Act: Applicable only when specific facts are solely within the accused’s knowledge and difficult for the prosecution to prove. It does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden.

FACTS:

Shambu Nath Mehra, a Camp Clerk in Ajmer, was accused of fraudulently claiming Rs. 23-12-0 as travel allowances (T.A.) for journeys from Ajmer to Abu Road and Ajmer to Reengus, purportedly representing second-class railway fares.
Allegations included that he either did not undertake the journeys or traveled without purchasing second-class tickets but claimed the amount as T.A.
The trial court convicted Mehra under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 for each offense, with sentences running concurrently.
On appeal, the Sessions Judge at Ajmer acquitted him, citing insufficient evidence for the prosecution’s claims.
The State appealed to the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer, who overturned the acquittal and remanded the case for a retrial before a Special Judge, as amendments required corruption cases to be heard by such judges.
The prosecution relied on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, asserting that the burden to prove he paid second-class fares rested on Mehra, as this fact was within his “especial knowledge.”
Evidence presented by the prosecution established that no second-class tickets for Abu Road or Reengus were issued on the relevant dates. However, it also indicated that passengers could pay fares on trains or purchase lower-class tickets and later upgrade to second class.
The defense argued the prosecution failed to prove that Mehra had not paid the fares or followed alternate ticketing procedures. The accused claimed it was impossible to provide detailed explanations for events that had occurred years earlier, given the prosecution’s delay in initiating the case.
The matter reached the Supreme Court under its criminal appellate jurisdiction by special leave, challenging the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution did not discharge its primary burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Mehra had committed the offenses.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which shifts the burden of proof for facts especially within the knowledge of the accused, was deemed inapplicable. The Court emphasized that the prosecution cannot evade its duty to establish guilt merely by invoking this section.
The Court clarified that “especial knowledge” applies only when facts are disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to prove and easily provable by the accused. In this case, the prosecution could have verified whether Mehra made alternate payments or obtained receipts.
The Court criticized the prolonged litigation, which spanned over eight years, and noted that the prosecution had ample opportunity to gather evidence.
The Supreme Court restored the Sessions Judge’s order acquitting Mehra on all counts, citing insufficient evidence to support the charges.