THE STATE OF MADRAS versus A. VAIDYANATHA IYER

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 26-09-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1957 
The State of 
Bombay 
v. 
Saubhagchand 
M. Do1hl 
Venkataramtt 
Alyar J. 
1957 
580 
SUPREME 
COURJ REPORTS 
[1958] 
Junagadh, the age of superannuation was 60, that 
art. XVI of the Instrument of Accession provided that 
the permanent members of the public services in the 
several States should be continued on conditions not 
less advantageous than those on which they were 
holding office at the· date of accession, and that under 
this Covenant, the respondent was entitled to continue 
until he attained the age of 60. The decision in 
Bholanath J. Thaker v. State of Saurashtra(') was 
relied on in support of this position. But no such 
claim was put forward in the writ petition, and it is 
now too late to raise it. 
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the 
lower Court is set aside, and the petition of the res-
. pondent is dismissed. The parties will bear their own 
costs throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
THE STATE OF MADRAS 
v. 
September 26 
A. VAIDYANATHA IYER 
(B. P. SINHA, GOVINDA MENON and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Appeal by special /eave-Order of acquittal by the High Court-
Power of Supreme Court-Presumption-Prevention of Corruption 
Act. (II of 1947), s. 4-Constitution of India, Art. 136. 
Respondent, an Income-tax Officer, called an assessee to his 
house and took a sum of Rs. 800 from him. Immediately after-
wards a search was made and the respondent, after some evasion 
produced the money. The respondent's defence was that he had 
taken the money as a loan and not as illegal gratification. The 
Special Judge who tried the respondent found him guilty under 
s. 161, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to six months simple 
imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the respond-
' 
ent. The State obtaine.d special leave and appealed. 
Held, that the words used ·in Art. 136 of the Constitution 
show that in criminal matters no distinction can be made as 
a 
matter of construction between a judgment of conviction and one 
of acquittal. The Supreme Court till not readily interfere with 
the findings of fact given by the High Court but if the High Court 
(t) A.I.R. (1954) S.C. 680. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
581 
acts perversely or otherwise improperly interference will be 
19.57 
called for. 
· 
The finwngs of the High Court are halting and its approach 
to the case has been erroneous as it disregarded the special rule 
The State of 
Madras 
of burden of proof under s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 
(II of 1947). The judgment of the High Court shows that certain 
salient pieces of evidence were missed or were not 
properly 
appreciated. 
In this situation the Supreme Court can interfere· in an 
appeal by special leave. 
Where it is proved that a gratification has been accepted, the 
presumption under s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act shall 
at once arise. It is a presumption of law .and it is obligatory on 
the Col!rt to raise it in every case brought under s. 4. 
The evidence and circumstances in this case lead to the 
conclusion that the transaction was not one of loan but of illegal . 
gratification. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 5 of 1957. 
Appeal by special . leave from the judgment 
and 
order dated the 6th September, 1955, of the Madras 
High Court in Criminal Appeat No. 498 of 1954 and 
Criminal Revision Case No. 257of1955, arising out of 
the judgment and order dated the· 12th July, 1954 of 
the Special Judge, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 1 of 1952. 
H.J. Umrigaer, H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for 
the appellants. 
· 
K. S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Sardar Bahadur, 
for the respondent. 
1957. September 26. The following Judgment of 
the Court was delivered by 
KAPUR J.-This is an appeal by the State of Madras 
from the judgment and order of the High C:ourt of -
Madras reversing the judgment of the Special Judge 
of Coimbatore and thereby acquitting the respondent 
who had been convicted of an offence under s. 161 
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months simple 
imprisonment. 
The respondent, Vaidyanatha Aiyer, was at all 
material times the Income-tax Officer of Coimbatore 
and it is not disputed that he was there in the beginning 
v. 
A. Valdyanatha 
Tyer 
KapurJ. 
1957 
Tht Srate of 
Madras 
v, 
A. Vaidyanalha 
Iyer 
Kapur 
J. 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
of June 1951. According to 
the prosecution the 
respondent in the end of September 1951 demanded 
from K. S. Narayana Iyer (hereinafter referred to as the 
complainant) who

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.