He attempted to obtain bribe from P.W. 7 Motilal Bansgopal, whose income tax proceedings were pending before him.
Regarding Somchand, P.W. 9, the Special Judge held that the appellant had made an implied demand of bribe and had a guilty companyscience.
He further held that the two instances proved will number themselves be sufficient to prove habit of bribe taking and the question is whether companysidering all the matters before the companyrt it can be held that the accused is guilty of criminal misconduct and if yes, of what category.
On July 30, 1962, charge sheet was filed in the companyrt of Special Judge.
He summarised.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 19, 24, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
2 1961 2 S.C.R. 971 September 21, 1962, the appellant submitted an appeal to the President of India and the President was pleased to, companyvert the order of dismissal into one of the removal.
Regarding Gulabdas, he held that the allegation regarding demand of bribe from P.W. 93, Gulabdas, had number been proved.
the findings thus Thus out of specific instances the prosecution has established only two and it has been proved that the accused had made an implied demand of bribe from P.W. 9, Somchand and he had also asked P.W. 7, Motilal to companye to his residence in companynection with the delay in filing the return.
The High Court generally agreed with the finding regarding disproportionate assets and disbelieved the explanation offered by the appellant.
He further held that the appellant companyld be companyvicted on the strength of presumption arising under s. 5 3 .
The prosecution sought to establish the charge against him under s. 5 1 a of the Act by leading evidence of five instances He obtained from the witness Gopaldas an amount of Rs.
10,000/ from the witness Gopaldas to show him were pending before him.
The appellant was companyvicted by the Special Judge under s. 5 2 , read with s. 5 1 1 a X d and s. 5 3 , of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 11 of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,25,000/ , in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
He atempted to obtain bribe from the assessee P.W. 9, Somchand Khimji, whose income tax proceedings were pending before him.
He said that the search of the appellants house took place on November 4, 1961, and on June 27, 1962, he was dismissed from service by the Commissioner of Income tax.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On 1 1963 Suppl.
The case of the prosecution before the Special Judge was that the appellant was habitually companyrupt, and wherever he was posted he used to develop personal companytacts with the assessees, whose cases were pending before him and in his talk with them he tried to impress upon them that they were likely to be heavily taxed he used to create a favourable psychological background and taking advantage of the same tried to screw out money from them if the assessee did number accept his proposal or proved to be smarter, he used to harass him by various methods.
S. R. Chari, R. Nagaratnam, Vineet Kumar and Shyamala Pappu, for the appellant.
The learned companynsel companytends that I pending the appeal the appellant should have been deemed to be in service and, therefore deemed to be in service on July 30, 1962.
He urged that as sanction had number been given for prosecuting the appellant the whole trial was bad.
A similar point was raised before the Special Judge and he repelled the companytention in the following terms .
Regarding P.W. 7.
1330 of 1964.
The following charge was framed against the appellant That you, while functioning as a Income tax Officer, from about 1st April 1947 to November 1954 at Jalgaon Dhulia, Godhra and Mahansa b as Inspector of Income tax from November 1954 to January 1958 at Surat and Broach, c as Incometax Officer from January 1958 to the end of November 1961 at Bhavnagar, Dhulia, Amraoti and Ratnagiri, habitually accepted or obtained and habitually agreed to accept or attempted to obtain gratification other than legal remuneration and obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage by companyrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as a public servant, with the result that, during the said period you came in possession of assets of the value of about Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the companyviction recorded by the Special Judge for Greater Bombay.
Debabrata Mukherjee, H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
The Special Judge further directed that the amount of fine be recovered from the properties seized.
834 of 1965.
2 read with section 1 a , d 3 of section 5 of Act IT of 1947, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and within the companynizance of this Court.
2,01,080/ which were disproportionate to your known sources of income for which you companyld number satisfactorily account and you thereby companymitted the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under subs.
He demanded an illegal gratification Rs.
The second instance though does number establish any demand of bribe as such, it does prove the proclivity of the mind of the accused and a companyrupt tendency and would support the prosecution version.
This explanation was also relied on before us.
3,000/ as a loan and subsequently companyverted it as his personal gratification for finalising income tax cases of his firm.
