Raja Seshaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 882 of 1994
Petitioner: Raja Seshaiah
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 882 of 1994
Judges: Y.K. SABHARWAL & BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Sections 13(2), 7, 13(1)(d) – Bribe – Offence – Tax recovery officer visiting complainant and disclosing arrears of tax against his firm – Three more partners – Complainant advising accused to approach them – Complaint lodged that accused demanded Rs. 1000/- to leave him and approach the others – Asked to come the following day – Amount accepted and recovered – Defence showing that accused was entitled to receive even part of tax – Courts below finding it to be bribery amount. Held that there is no ground to take different view. Appeal dismissed. (Paras 2, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant was a tax recovery inspector in the income tax department. He was convicted for an offence under sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the judgment of the special judge, Hyderabad and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months was imposed on him. The conviction has been maintained in judgment under appeal by the High Court, but the imprisonment has been reduced from two years to one year and fine to Rs.1,000/- and default period to three months. The accused is in appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant visited the shop of one T. Krishna Mohan Rao of Rajeshwari Lorry Transport on 4th January, 1991. He informed Mr. Rao of the tax arrears of Rs. 19,481/- for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88 pertaining to his firm and also showed him the demand notice issued by the tax recovery officer. Mr. Rao told the accused that he was a working partner and requested the accused that he should have approached the other three remaining partners and the names and addresses of the remaining partners were supplied to the accused. Exhibit P.3 dated 5th January, 1991 is a written report made by the said Rao to the inspector of police, C.B.I., stating that the accused informed him that as a special squad inspector, he was authorised to collect tax from any of the partners of the firm and if Rao pays him Rs.1,000/- as bribe, he shall recover the arrears from the remaining partners; if not, then he shall see that Rao’s business is at dislodged and he will also attach his properties. Further the complaint says that the accused told the complainant that he will return the next date, i.e., 5th January, 1991, the date on which the complaint was made because the complainant had told the accused on the previous date that he did not have Rs. 1,000/-. The complainant asked the police to take action since he would not like to give the bribe. A trap was laid on 5th January, 1991. When, at the agreed time, the accused visited the shop of the complainant, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid to him by Rao. The accused was caught on the spot. The numbers of the currency notes which were previously noted and the chemically treated currency notes, the result of chemical analysis whereof was positive, proved the receipt of the amount by the appellant. The receipt of Rs. 1,000/- by the appellant from Rao is even otherwise not disputed.
3. With reference to the evidence on record, in particular the evidence of the officer from the tax department, it is contended that as a tax recovery inspector, the appellant was entitled to receive the tax and the tax in part as well, the only obligation on him being to deposit the tax, so collected, within 24 hours in the treasury. The contention is that the amount of Rs.1,000/- so received by the appellant was not a bribe but was only a part payment towards the tax amount of Rs. 19,481/- due from the firm. The trial court as also the High Court, on appreciation of the evidence, have come to the conclusion that it was a bribe amount and not a part of the tax amount.
4. We have examined the record and see no reason to take a different view. The view taken by the trial court and the High Court is fully justified on the evidence on record. There is no substance in the matter.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. He would be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
1. The appellant was a tax recovery inspector in the income tax department. He was convicted for an offence under sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the judgment of the special judge, Hyderabad and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months was imposed on him. The conviction has been maintained in judgment under appeal by the High Court, but the imprisonment has been reduced from two years to one year and fine to Rs.1,000/- and default period to three months. The accused is in appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant visited the shop of one T. Krishna Mohan Rao of Rajeshwari Lorry Transport on 4th January, 1991. He informed Mr. Rao of the tax arrears of Rs. 19,481/- for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88 pertaining to his firm and also showed him the demand notice issued by the tax recovery officer. Mr. Rao told the accused that he was a working partner and requested the accused that he should have approached the other three remaining partners and the names and addresses of the remaining partners were supplied to the accused. Exhibit P.3 dated 5th January, 1991 is a written report made by the said Rao to the inspector of police, C.B.I., stating that the accused informed him that as a special squad inspector, he was authorised to collect tax from any of the partners of the firm and if Rao pays him Rs.1,000/- as bribe, he shall recover the arrears from the remaining partners; if not, then he shall see that Rao’s business is at dislodged and he will also attach his properties. Further the complaint says that the accused told the complainant that he will return the next date, i.e., 5th January, 1991, the date on which the complaint was made because the complainant had told the accused on the previous date that he did not have Rs. 1,000/-. The complainant asked the police to take action since he would not like to give the bribe. A trap was laid on 5th January, 1991. When, at the agreed time, the accused visited the shop of the complainant, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid to him by Rao. The accused was caught on the spot. The numbers of the currency notes which were previously noted and the chemically treated currency notes, the result of chemical analysis whereof was positive, proved the receipt of the amount by the appellant. The receipt of Rs. 1,000/- by the appellant from Rao is even otherwise not disputed.
3. With reference to the evidence on record, in particular the evidence of the officer from the tax department, it is contended that as a tax recovery inspector, the appellant was entitled to receive the tax and the tax in part as well, the only obligation on him being to deposit the tax, so collected, within 24 hours in the treasury. The contention is that the amount of Rs.1,000/- so received by the appellant was not a bribe but was only a part payment towards the tax amount of Rs. 19,481/- due from the firm. The trial court as also the High Court, on appreciation of the evidence, have come to the conclusion that it was a bribe amount and not a part of the tax amount.
4. We have examined the record and see no reason to take a different view. The view taken by the trial court and the High Court is fully justified on the evidence on record. There is no substance in the matter.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. He would be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
