THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. K. BHIMESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 55 of 1946 by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Ellore. He was charged with an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for having dishonestly induced Kesaripalli Anjaneyulu, P.W. 1, and Umma Janardhana Rao, P.W. 2, to deliver to him Rs. 1,000.

(2.) THE accused was an auditor employed by P. Ws. 1 and 2 who were merchants jointly conducting tobacco business at Ellore to audit the accounts of their firm, to prepare their Income Tax return and to look after their Income Tax affairs. He had been so employed by them for over fifteen years. They sent their Income Tax return for the assessment year 1944 -45 some time in August, 1944. The case for the prosecution is that after the accounts were prepared for Income Tax purposes the accused represented to them that their income was such that they would become liable to Excess Profits Tax and he undertook to see that they escaped such assessment if Rs. 1,000 was given to him to be paid as a bribe to the Income Tax Officer. P.W.s 1 and 2 accordingly paid him Rs. 1,000 some time in January, 1945. Eventually there was an assessment order Exhibit D -1, dated 12th January, 1945 and by that order they were not assessed to any Excess Profits Tax. Months later, P.W. 2 met P.W. 3, the Income Tax Officer, Ellore, who was the Income Tax Officer on the relevant dates, and after a conversation which related to private matters, P.W. 2 asked P.W. 3 if he was in receipt of Rs. 1,000 sent through his auditor in the previous year. P.W. 3 denied having received any money from the auditor. P.Ws. 1 and 2 then realised that they had been duped. P.W. 3 consulted his superior officers and on their advice he lay a trap to catch the accused.

(3.) THE defence as set out in the statement made by the accused before the Magistrate was that though it was true that a sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid it was not paid to be utilised for bribing the Income Tax Officer but it was paid as a reward for the services rendered by the accused in pursuance of an agreement by which P.W. 2 proposed to pay him this reward if excess profit liability was avoided.