MAHADEV DHANAPPA GUNAKI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants before us were charged before the Additional Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, for having, on or about 23-3-1949 at the Police Club in Belgaum, in furtherance of the common intention of themselves and one Madivalappa Veerappa Pattan who had died during the investigation, offered Rs. 15,000 as an illegal gratification to one Shri P. P. Naik, Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Branch, Belgaum, in order that he should help them in getting the income-tax inquiry against them dropped and that he should see that the account-books attached by the Anti-Corruption Police were returned to them and having thereby committed an offence punishable under S. l16 read with Ss. 161 and 34, Penal Code. The prosecution case was as follows : The appellants and one Madivalappa Veerappa Pattan were residing and carrying on business in,partnership in Silk, Yarn, Sarees and other articles in Rabkavi in the district of Belgaum. Having received information that the firm was evading income-tax to a great extent, one Sri Gudi, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, along with Sri Naik, Inspector of Police, went from Belgaum to Rabkavi and searched the residence and business premises of the appellants on 24th/25th-1-1949 and seized their account-books. At this time the appellant Durdi offered to pay Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 to Sri Naik to bush up the matter. A similar offer was also made to Sri Gudi. Both the officers characterised the offer as improper and declined to accept it. The two officers returned to Belgaum on 26-1-1949 and on their return they informed their superior officers Sri Malpathak the Superintendent of Police and Sri Wagh, the then head of the Anti-Corruption Branch about the offers of bribe made to them by the appellant. They also had a talk about these offers with Shri Jadhav, the District Magistrate of Belgaum who advised them to arrange for a trap to catch the appellants. On 21-2-1949 Shri Gudi issued an order (Ex. 1A) directing Sri Naik to examine the books of account attached by them and to submit his report. In the first week of March 1949 at Hubli, which was about 100 miles away from Rabkavi, the appellants contacted one Sri Keshavain who was known to them and was also a friend of Sri Naik and through him offered to pay Sri Naik an amount up to Rs. 30,000 for saving them from the enquiry and for the return of the books of accounts. Sri Keshavain later on informed them that he had seen Sri Naik but the latter had asked him to inform the appellants that the offer was an improper one. On 12-3-1949 Sri Naik submitted his report (Ex. 10A) stating in substance that a cursory examination revealed that huge profits made by black marketing had been concealed and the payment of income-tax on such profits had been evaded. The report ended with the following paragraph:

(2.) After some further investigation, in the course of which Madivalappa Veerappa Pattan the partner of the appellants died, the two appellants were sent up for trial on the charge mentioned above. The prosecution examined, amongst others, Sri Naik, Sri Kamat, Sri Jadhav, Sri Keshavain, Sri Gudi, Sri Arur and the Panch in support of its case. The appellants pleaded not guilty and denied having made any offer of a bribe. They said that they paid Rs. 15,000 to Sri Naik as and by way of composition money in settlement of the State's Claim for income-tax and examined five defence witnesses. The trial Magistrate disbelieved the defence witnesses and accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as substantially correct found that the sum of Rs. 15,000 had been offered as illegal gratification for hushing the income-tax inquiry and for the return of the books and convicted and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sum of Rs. 15 ,000 was confiscated to the Government.

(3.) The appellants preferred an appeal but the Additional Sessions Judge, in agreement with the trial Magistrate, came to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 15,000 had been offered as illegal gratification and not as composition for income-tax and accordingly upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the trial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. The appellants moved the High Court in revision but that application was also dismissed. The appellants applied for and obtained leave of the High Court to appeal to this Court on a certificate under Art. 134 (1) which runs as follows :