STATE OF MADRAS Vs. A VAIDYANATHA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Madras from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras reversing the judgment of the Special Judge of Coimbatore and thereby acquitting the respondent who had been convicted of an offence under S. 161 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) The respondent Vaidyanatha Iyer was at all material times the Income-tax Officer of Coimbatore and it is not disputed that he was there in the beginning of June 1951. According to the prosecution the respondent in the end of September, 1951, demanded from K. S. Narayana Iyer, (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) who is a proprietor of a "Coffee Hotel" called Nehru Cafe in Coimbatore with another similar hotel at Bhavanisagar, a bribe of Rs. 1,000.

(3.) The complainant had been assessed to income-tax all along since 1942. During the course of assessment for the year 1950-51 it was discovered that he had failed to pay advance income-tax. A notice was therefore issued to him on March 24, 1951, under S. 28 read with S. 18-A (2) of the Income-tax Act to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed for under-estimating his income. For the assessment year 1951-52 also the complainant in the usual course filed his return on 11-8-1951, and on a notice being issued to him produced his accounts before the Income-tax Officer on 27-9-1951. He again appeared before him on the 28th and the respondent told him that the "penalty papers had not been disposed of and that the accounts of the current year had also not been gone through" and asked the complainant to see him at his house on the following morning which the complainant did. 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. 1,000, as illegal gratification. 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. Because he was asked to do so the complainant saw the respondent at the latter's house on October 6 or 7 and he asked the complainant if he had brought the money and after some talk about the assessment the respondent asked the complainant to pay half the amount as it was Deepavali time. There is evidence of a defence witness also to show that towards the end of October 1951, the complainant was seen coming from the house of the respondent though the prosecution and the defence are not in accord as to the purpose of this visit.