1957 (9) TMI 63 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reverses acquittal, upholds conviction of Income-tax Officer under Corruption Act.

State of madras Versus A. Vaidyanatha iyer

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Special Judge's conviction of the respondent, an ... - Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the bribe demand.2. Evaluation of evidence and testimonies.3. Application of the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.4. High Court's approach and judgment.5. Supreme Court's power to interfere with acquittals.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Bribe Demand:The respondent, an Income-tax Officer, was accused of demanding Rs. 1,000 as a bribe from the complainant to favor him in income tax assessments and penalty proceedings. The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded the bribe on multiple occasions, including at his house, and eventually accepted Rs. 800. The respondent claimed that the money was a loan due to his financial difficulties and not a bribe.2. Evaluation of Evidence and Testimonies:The Special Judge of Coimbatore found the respondent guilty based on the prosecution's evidence, including the complainant's testimony, the recorded statement (P-17), and the presence of marked currency notes. The High Court, however, reversed this judgment, citing insufficient evidence to conclusively prove that the money was a bribe rather than a loan. The High Court noted:- 'The evidence is not enough to show that the explanation offered by the accused cannot reasonably be true, and so, the benefit of doubt must go to him.'- 'In my view, the evidence does not necessarily make out a case that the accused must have accepted the money only as a bribe.'3. Application of the Presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which states that if it is proved that an accused person has accepted any gratification other than legal remuneration, it shall be presumed to be a bribe unless the contrary is proven. The High Court's failure to properly apply this presumption was highlighted:- 'The learned judge seems to have disregarded the special rule of burden of proof under s. 4 and therefore his approach in this case has been on erroneous lines.'4. High Court's Approach and Judgment:The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's approach, noting several key pieces of evidence that were either missed or not properly appreciated:- The complainant's lack of knowledge about the penalty proceedings' final orders.- The improbability of the respondent's claim of not knowing the complainant was an assessee.- The respondent's suspicious behavior when confronted by the Inspector and Magistrate.- The production of an unsigned promissory note for Rs. 1,000, which was not found during the initial search and did not match the amount allegedly loaned.The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court acted 'perversely or otherwise improperly' and failed to give due weight to the evidence.5. Supreme Court's Power to Interfere with Acquittals:The Supreme Court reaffirmed its power to interfere with acquittals under Article 136 of the Constitution, especially when the High Court's judgment is found to be perverse or improper. The Court cited previous judgments to support its authority to review and reverse acquittals in cases of substantial and grave injustice.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Special Judge's conviction of the respondent. The respondent was ordered to surrender to his bail bond. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the proper application of legal presumptions and the thorough evaluation of evidence in corruption cases.