TAJKHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused Tajkhan who has been convicted under Section 161 read with Section 116, I. P. C. , and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to two months' further rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Udalpur, acting as a Special Judge.

(2.) THE material facts are these. The appellant is a dealer in wool and cotton, and carries on business in the name of Daud]i Mohammadji and has his office at Udaipur. The properties of the firm, according to the appellant, are of two brothers Hussain All's and Nazir Ali and the appellant is Hussain Ali's son and has been looking after the entire business. It is common ground that the appellant was an assessee for purposes of income-tax within the jurisdiction of Mr. Gupta, Income-tax Officer at Udaipur, and his (appellant's) case for assessment came before that officer on 9-1-1952. P. W. 3 Shri Bhattacharya was his counsel and both had appeared before the Income-tax Officer on 9-1-1952, when certain account-books and other necessary documents had been produced before Shri Gupta. These accounts had been gone into and it appears that the case was fixed for 10-1-1952, for arguments. The prosecution story is that the appellant went to the Income-tax Office at about 9 a. m. on the 10th January and sent a slip to Shri Gupta through Kalu who was a peon in the Income-tax Office. It may be pointed out that Shri Gupta occupied a house where he had his office in the ground-floor and his residential apartments in the upperone. When Kalu took the appellant's slip to Shri Gupta, the latter sent a reply back that the appellant should Bee him in the office. Shri Gupta came to his office at about 10 O'clock, and again a second Blip was sent by the appellant to him through the peon Kalu. Shri Gupta called the appellant in the office at about 10-30 am or so. The story for the prosecution, is that the appellant having come into Shri Gupta's office, asked the latter to have pity on him and that he should tax the appellant leniently. According to Shri Gupta, the appellant took off his 'pagdi' from the head and placed it on Shri Gupta's table. Shri Gupta said that he would deal with the appellant according to law and on the facts and documents brought to his notice, and that he had already explained the entire position to the appellant's counsel Shri Bhattacharya. Thereafter the appellant again made a prayer for mercy and took out a few currency notes from his pocket (the exact number of which Shri Gupta was not able to see) and presented them to him. This annoyed Shri Gupta and he rang the bell for "his peon and asked him to keep watch over the appellant. Immediately Shri Gupta telephoned to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, but as the latter was not available, he telephoned to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and told him what had happened. The Deputy Inspector General of Police then deputed two police officers of whom one was Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Razora, and the other was Circle Inspector, Shri Laxmilal, to go and investigate the matter. On the arrival of these officers, Shri Gupta gave the first information report Ex. P-l. The appellant was then searched and a sum of Rs. 500/-in five currency notes of Rs. 100/-each was found in one of the pockets of his 'achkan' and some more notes were found in another pocket of his. The accused was eventually tried and convicted by the learned Special Judge as already stated above.

(3.) THE appellant pleaded not guilty. He admitted that he had an assessment case pending before the Income-tax Officer, Shri Gupta and that that case had been taken up on 9-1-1952, when certain papers and documents had been shown to the Income-tax Officer in the presence of Shri Bhattacharya, appellant's counsel. It is also not disputed that the case was to come up for being further proceeded with on the next day, that is, 10-1-1952. The appellant further admitted that he had sent a slip through the peon to see the Income-tax Officer but his case is that he sent the slip only once and that too after 10 O'clock when the Income-tax Office had opened, and that he had not tried to see the income-tax Officer in his residential quarters at all. The appellant's further version is that he had never offered any money to Shri Gupta but that there was a certain paper (Ex. D-2) in his pocket, which was a letter received from hiand agent at Badoli saying that the latter had kept no detailed accounts, and that he was trying to take out this paper to show it to Shri Gupta, a few currency notes came out accidentally from his pocket and that this had flared up Shri Gupta, but as a matter of fact, the appellate had never offered any money to him.