Civil standard of proof applies to bribery allegations in contract disputes; concurrent findings on a bribe agreement were upheld.

In a civil suit, an allegation that an agreement was a bribe is proved on the balance of probabilities, not by the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, even though the court must keep the presumption of honesty or innocence and the probabilities of the case in view. On that approach, the concurrent findings based on evidence and legitimate inferences were not disturbed, and the surrounding circumstances supported the conclusion that the agreement was intended as a bribe. The Court further held that such bribery falls within section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, so the challenge to the finding failed and the agreement was treated as unenforceable on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a civil suit, an allegation that the agreement was a bribe had to be proved to the standard applicable in a criminal case and whether the concurrent findings that the transaction was a bribe under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 could be disturbed.

Analysis: The ordinary rule under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to civil cases, and a charge of fraudulent or criminal character does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that while the presumption of honesty or innocence and the probabilities of the case must be kept in view, the standard remains the balance of probabilities. It further held that the findings of the Full Bench were based on evidence and legitimate inferences, and that the circumstances supported the conclusion that the agreement was intended as a bribe. The Court also held that the case of bribery was covered by section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The challenge to the concurrent findings failed, and the finding that the agreement was a bribe was upheld against the appellant.

---