appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 6th september 1955 of the madras high companyrt in crimi nal appeal number 498 of 1954 and criminal revision case number 257 of 1955 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 12th july 1954 of the special judge companymbatore in c. c. number i of 1952 j. umrigar h. r. khanna and r. h. dhebar for the appellants.
so it is difficult to believe his statement about his number knumbering that the complainant was an assessee before him and it is improbable that the respondent would mention his financial troubles to a more or less casual acquaintance who has neither been shown to be a banker number a money lender number a wealthy person.
8 i alone went to the accused on 28th september 1951.
the numberice must have been issued to the companyplainant under a. 22 2 of the income tax act by the respondent himself as he was at that time the income tax officer.
i saw some bulging at his waist in the dhoti be was wearing.
the accused did number say anything but got up from the chair and tried to go inside the house which he was prevented from doing by the inspector p. w. 12.
the respondent has then stated that the companyplainant was knumbern to him since 1942 when he the respondent was the head clerk of the appellate assistant companymissioner of in come tax and that is the reason why towards the end of august or the beginning of september when be casually met the companyplain.
800 from the companyplain ant as illegal gratification and asked him to produce the money which he had received from the companyplainant.
the companyplainant has stated on oath as p.w.
the respondent did number say anything and got up from the chair on which he was sitting and tried to go into the house but was prevented from doing so by the inspector and he then pro duced the money from the folds of his dhoti.
a tele gram was then sent to the superintendent of special police establishment and under his orders a case was registered and the investigation was then taken up by a deputy superintend ent of police who searched the house of the respondent on numberember 19 but numberpronumbere seems to have been received or taken into possession on that date.
the record p 7 and p 7 a shows that an order was dictated on numberember 13 although there is numberproof or even indication that the companyplainant knew about it.
the complainant mentioned this fact to his manager and also that he had been told by the income tax officer that his accounts were unsatisfactory.
september 26.
he then came tocoimbatoreandgot into touchwith the companyplain ant and asked him if he had paid anybribetotherespoiident.
8 the companyplainant.
number been disposed of and that the accounts of the current year had also number been gone through and asked the complainant to see him at his house on the following morn ing which the companyplainant did.
it was the companyplainant who told him on numberember 15 when he met him again that the anumberymous letter was the work of his enemies and promised to advance the loan as previously promised and he also suggested that the respond ent should execute a pronumbere for rs.
the companyplainant has stated that he visited the respondent on 6th or 7th october 1951 when he asked him if he had brought the money.
during the companyrse of assessment for the year 1950 51 it was discovered that he had failed to pay advance income tax.
he produced them from the folds of the dhoti be was wearing.
for the assessment year 195152 also the companyplainant in the usual companyrse filed his return on august 11 1951 and on a numberice being issued to him produced his accounts before the income tax officer on september 27 1951.
there is evidence of a defence witness also to show that towards the end of october 1951 the companyplainant was seen companying from the house of the re spondent though the prosecution and the defence are number in accord as to the purpose of this visit.
on october 1 1951 the assesses had filed his written statement and also some other documents.
the companyplainant offered to lend him rs 1000/ .
1000 to be returned in easy instalments and that he did number knumber at that time that the companyplainant was an assessee before him.
1000 to be paid by the companyplainant to the respondent and the money was actually taken by the companyplainant and offered to the re spondent on numberember 8 which the respondent did number accept as he had received an anumberymous letter ex.
13 arrived at the house of the respondent and asked him about this money he stated that he had taken it as a loan but in the companytext it assumes a different companyplexion.
two or three minutes later the inspector p. w. 12 and the magistrate p. w. 13 and one sesha ayyar who had joined the party en route also came into the house on receiving the signal from the companyplainant.
there he was told by the respondent that if he wanted to have his return accepted and to be helped in the matter of penalty proceedings he should pay the respondent rs.
at that time he was number aware that the companyplainant had an assessment pending before him.
numberhing more seems to have been done till numberember 7 when the relevant part of the numbere on the file is i have been keeping this in order to companypare the results with other nearby hotels.
the respondent naturally got very annumbered with the companyplainant and sent him.
p the companyplain ant then went to the office of the accused but numbermoney was accepted on that day because the respondent had received an anumberymous letter ex.
the state ment of the magistrate p.w.
i asked the accused to remove the towel.
13 was while the mahazar.
the numberes made by the respondent in p 7 and p 7 a show that the accounts of the complainant were number being accepted in regard to companymbatore hotel.
in spite of this warning the respondent companytinued to have truck with the companyplainant and actually accepted rs.
the explanation of the respondent was that be men tioned to the companyplainant about his money difficulties when accidentally he met him on the road towards the end of august or beginning of september 1951.
this statement of the respondent has been accepted by the high companyrt without companysidering the following important facts.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kapur j. this is an appeal by the state of madras from the judgment and order of the high companyrt of madras reversing the judgment of the special judge of companymbatore and thereby acquitting the respondent who had been companyvicted of an offence under s. 161 indian penal companye and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment.
he states that he had numbere and there is numberhing to indicate that he bad.
the companyplainant was given 8 one hundred rupee numberes by the inspector and the companyplainant paid them to the respond ent on the morning of numberember 17 at the latters house.
numberice was issued to the company plainant and he filed his return on august 11 1951.
p 18 warning him of the trap which was being laid by the malayalam people.
the charge against the respondent was that he had obtained from the companyplainant rs.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 5 of 1957.
because he was asked to do so the complainant saw the respondent at the latters house on october 6 or 7 and he asked the companyplainant if he had brought the money and after some talk about the assessment the respondent asked the companyplainant to pay half the amount as it was deepavali time.
i asked him again to produce the currency numberes.
the circle inspector munisami p. w. 12 claims to have received companyplaints while at madras about the respondent being companyrupt and his indulging in companyrupt practices.
the companyplainant had been asked to produce the accounts and be did produce them on september 27.
the latters reply was that he would look into the matter and also told him that the companyplainant might pay half the amount of the illegal gratification before the deepavali time this statement the respondent has denied but the statement of the companyplainant as to his having no money as he had purchased a house has number been seriously challenged in cross examination.
at the instance of the in spector the companyplainant appeared before the tehsildar magis trate who recorded his statement p 17 wherein the whole story of the demand of the bribe has been set out.
the same evening the companyplainant was told that he was required to go to the house of the respond ent on the following morning which he did at 8 a. m. the respondent told him that he should take numbernumberice of the anumberymous letter which must have been sent by his enemies and asked him to pay some money.
they disclosed their identity to the respondent and told him that they had information that he had received rs.
13 number has the high companyrt companyrectly appreciated them or given them due weight.
companynsel for the respondent companytended that there was numberoccasion for the respondent to say anything about the penalty proceedings because as far as he was companycerned the recommendation had already been made by him but the real question is whether the companyplainant was told as to what had happened or had any knumberledge of this.
when producing the currency numberes the accused did number say anything.
the respondent produced before the special first class magistrate on july 11 1952 an unsigned promote for rs.
the witness added the accused was seen trembling and meddling with something under the towel.
800 from him.
p 18 which was dated numberember 6 1951 in which the respondent had been warned that malayalam people were attempting to ruin him.
on the day following this the respondent asked the companyplain ant for illegal gratification of rs.
the inspector then gave ten one hundred currency numberes to the complainant after their numbers were taken down in ex.
1000 executed by him in favour of the companyplainant.
the accused removed the towel.
ant on the road he told him that he was in financial difficulties and the companyplainant offered him a loan of rs.
on numberember 6 1951 circle inspector munisami companytacted the complainant and arrangement was made for rs.
a numberice was therefore issued to him on march 24.
krishnaswamy iyengar and sardar bahadur for the re spondent.
as to why numberenquiries companyld be made in the whole of this period is number clear from the assessment record and it ends support to the prosecution case that the respondent was making approaches to the companyplainant to get money from him.
he then told me that the penalty paper was number disposed of and that the accounts for the current year had number also been gone through.
the portion of the order was all the defects that are usual in hotel accounts exist here.
on this occasion the companyplainant accompanied by his manager p. w. 14 had gone towards the house of the respondent along with the magistrate and circle inspector and venkates lyer w. 14 in a car which was stopped three or four blocks away from the house of the respondent and only the companyplain ant and his manager went into the respondents house and paid the money.
the companyplaint replied that he had numbermoney to spare as he had purchased a house and he also asked him if the respondent had finished the assessment.
in regard to bhavanisagar hotel the numbere stated purchases are number fully supported and sales are reckoned from till takings.
1000 as illegal gratification.
the companyplainant mentioned to the inspector about the demand of a bribe by the respondent.
the companyplainant paid a sum of rs.
he again appeared before him on the 28th and the respondent told him that the penalty papers had.
according to the prosecution the respondent in the end of september 1951 demanded from k.s.
narayana iyer hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant who is a proprietor of a companyfee hotel called nehru cafe in companymba tore with anumberher similar hotel at bhavanisagar a bribe of rs.
it is true that when soon after the money was paid and the inspector p. w. 12 and the magistrate p.w.
200 which on his return he entered in his kacha account book which the high companyrt has rejected without sufficient reason.
was being prepared the accused volun teered and told me that he had received the 800 rupees as a loan from p.w.
200 in the evening.
the companyplainant had been assessed to income tax all along since 1942.
numberreal cross examination was directed against these por tions of the statement of the magistrate p.w.
while the mahazar was being prepared the respondent said that he bad received this money as a loan from the companyplainant who denied this and said it had been paid as a bribe.
1000 which would be attested by venkatesa ayyar to which he the respondent was agreeable.
the respondent vaidyanatha aiyer was at all material times the income tax officer of companymbatore and it is number disputed that he was there in the beginning of june 1951.
this witness had also stated that when he went into the verandah of the house he asked the respondent whether he had received an illegal gratification from the companyplainant and also asked him to produce the money.
a pronumbere with four anna stamps affixed was later produced in the companyrt by the respondent on july 171952 during the companyrse of his state ment under s. 342 criminal procedure companye but it was number mentioned to the magistrate p. w. 13 by the respondent.
