R VENKATESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VENKATESAN, Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Erode, hereinafter referred to as the appellant was convicted of offences punishable under Section 161, I. P. C. and under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge did not award any separate sentence for the offence under Section 161, I. P. C. The appellant is aggrieved and has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading to his conviction need narration. The appellant was an Agricultural Income-tax Officer. P. W. 1, Chidambara Gounder, a resident of Rakkapalayam in Erode Taluk, was an agricultural income-tax asses-see. He originally had extensive lands but had only about 58 acres in 1972. He alienated about 8 acres in June 1972, and applied under Ex. P-1 to the appellant to have a proportionate reduction of tax. Proceedings under Ex. P-2 were sent by the appellant to P. W. 1 and a demand notice was also sent directing P. W. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 144. 75 towards composition fee for the assessment year 1973-74. Again P. W. 1 sent a letter and as he did not receive any reply, he went to see the appellant at Erode. A statement was taken by the appellant from P. W. 1. The letter Ex. P-5 dated 10-9-1975 was received by P. W. 1 and he was asked by the appellant to be present at 10-30 a. m. on 19-9-1975 at the village Chavadi at Uttukuli The letter stated that if P. W. 1 fails to attend, the permission to compound the tax will be cancelled and tax will be levied on the basis of income. On 19-9-1975 P. W. 1 appeared before the appellant at 10-30 a. m. at the village Chavadi at Uttukuli. A statement was again taken from P. W. 1 by the appellant and that is Ex. P-6. The appellant then told P. W. 1 that he had spent Rs. 600 to Rs. 700 at the time of audit of his office and that he should pay Rs. 200 and if he pays Rs. 200, he will reduce the tax. P. W. 1 told the appellant that he had not brought the money and thereafter the appellant told P. W. 1 that he will be available at his office at Erode on 29-9-1975 and that he could go over there with the money. P. W. 1 agreed, but on 28-9-1975 at about 10-15 a. m. P. W. l went straight to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, at Coimbatore and there a complaint was given by P. W. 1 under Ex. P-7 and P. W. 1 was directed to go over on next day, to the guest house at Perundurai TB Sanatorium.

(3.) P. W. 1, as directed, went to the guest house at Perundurai T. B. Sanatorium at about 9 a. m. with the amount. When he was at the guest house two persons, one Superintending Inspector of Factories and another Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, came there and they were introduced to P. W. 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police gave the complaint preferred by P. W. 1 for perusal by those two officers. The Deputy Superintendent of Police made all of them acquainted with the phenolphthalein test and later smeared phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes brought by P. W. 1 and handed over them to P. W. 1 and asked him to hand them over to the accused if he so desired. The Deputy Superintendent of Police also gave a tape recorder and directed him to switch it on at the time of conversation with the appellant. He also asked P. W. 1 to give the signal, of wiping his face with a towel if the appellant received the cash of Rs. 200 from him,