{"id":109912,"date":"1957-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957"},"modified":"2015-03-08T03:22:50","modified_gmt":"2015-03-07T21:52:50","slug":"the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 61, \t\t 1958 SCR 580<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA.   VAIDYANATHA IYER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/09\/1957\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nMENON, P. GOVINDA\n\nCITATION:\n 1958 AIR   61\t\t  1958 SCR  580\n\n\nACT:\n       Appeal  by  special leave--Order of acquittal  by  the  High\n       Court--Power  of\t Supreme  Court-Presumption-Prevention\t of\n       Corruption  Act, (II of 1947), s. 4-Constitution\t Of  India,\n       Art. 136.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n       Respondent, an Income-tax Officer, called an assessee to his\n       house  and  took\t a sum of Rs. 800  from\t him.\tImmediately\n       afterwards a search was made and the respondent, after  some\n       evasion,\t produced the money.  The respondent's defence\twas\n       that  he had taken the money as a loan and not  as  illegal,\n       gratification.\tThe Special judge who tried the\t respondent\n       found  him guilty under s. 16i, Indian Penal Code, and  sen-\n       tenced  him to six months simple imprisonment.\tOn  appeal,\n       the High Court acquitted the respondent.\t The State obtained\n       special leave and appealed.\n       Held,  that the words used in Art.  I36 of the  Constitution\n       show that in criminal matters no distinction can be made\t as\n       a  matter of construction between a judgment  of\t conviction\n       and  one of acquittal.  The Supreme Court will  not  readily\n       interfere with the findings of fact given by the High  Court\n       but if the High Court\n       (i)  A.I.R. (1954) S.C. 680.\n       581\n       acts perversely or otherwise improperly interference will be\n       called for.\n       The findings of the High Court are halting and its  approach\n       to the case has been erroneous as it disregarded the special\n       rule  of\t burden of proof under s. 4 Of\tthe  Prevention\t of\n       Corruption Act (II Of 1947).  The judgment of the High Court\n       shows that certain salient pieces of evidence were missed or\n       were not properly appreciated.\n       In  this\t situation the Supreme Court can  interfere  in\t an\n       appeal by special leave.\n       Where  it is proved that a gratification has been  accepted,\n       the  presumption under s- 4 Of the Prevention of\t Corruption\n       Act shall at once arise.\t It is a presumption of law and\t it\n       is obligatory on the Court to raise it in every case brought\n       under s. 4.\n       The  evidence  and circumstances in this case  lead  to\tthe\n       conclusion  that the transaction was not one of loan but\t of\n       illegal gratification.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
       CRIMINAL\t APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.  5\t of
\n       1957.\n<\/p>\n
       Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated
\n       the 6th September, 1955, of the Madras High Court in  Crimi-
\n       nal  Appeal No. 498 of 1954 and Criminal Revision  Case\tNo.
\n       257 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated the
\n       12th  July, 1954 of the Special Judge, Coimbatore in  C.\t C.
\n       No. I of 1952..\n<\/p>\n
       H.   J.\tUmrigar,  H. R. Khanna and R. H.  Dhebar,  for\tthe
\n       appellants.\n<\/p>\n
       K.g.  Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Sardar Bahadur, for  the\tre-
\n       spondent.\n<\/p>\n
       1957.   September 26.  The following Judgment of\t the  Court
\n       was delivered by
\n       KAPUR  J.-This is an appeal by the State of Madras from\tthe
\n       judgment and order of the High Court of Madras reversing the
\n       judgment\t of  the Special Judge of  Coimbatore  and  thereby
\n       acquitting  the\trespondent  who had been  convicted  of\t an
\n       offence under s. 161 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to\tsix
\n       months simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
       The respondent, Vaidyanatha Aiyer, was at all material times
\n       the Income-tax Officer of Coimbatore and it is not  disputed
\n       that he was there in the beginning
\n       582<\/span>
\n       of  June 1951.  According to the prosecution the\t respondent
\n       in  the\tend of September 1951 demanded from  K.S.  Narayana
\n       Iyer  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) who is  a
\n       proprietor of a “Coffee Hotel” called Nehru cafe in  Coimba-
\n       tore  with another similar hotel at Bhavanisagar a bribe\t of
\n       Rs. 1,000.\n<\/p>\n
       The  complainant had been assessed to income-tax\t all  along
\n       since  1942.  During the course of assessment for  the  year
\n       1950-51 it was discovered that he had failed to pay  advance
\n       income-tax.   A notice was therefore issued to him on  March\n<\/p>\n
       24.,  1951 under s. 28 read with s. 18-A (2) of the  Income-
\n       tax Act. to show cause why a penalty should not be.  imposed
\n       for  underestimating  his income.  For the  assessment  year
\n       195152  also the complainant in the usual course\t filed\this
\n       return  on August 11, 1951 and on a notice being\t issued\t to
\n       him  produced his accounts before the Income-tax Officer\t on
\n       September  27,  1951.  He again appeared before him  on\tthe
\n       28th  and the respondent told him that the ” penalty  papers
\n       had.  not  been\tdisposed of and that the  accounts  of\tthe
\n       current year had also not been gone through ” and asked\tthe
\n       complainant  to see him at his house on the following  morn-
\n       ing,  which the complainant did.\t There he was told  by\tthe
\n       respondent that if he wanted to have his return accepted and
\n       to be helped in the matter of penalty proceedings he  should
\n       pay the respondent Rs. 1,000 as illegal gratification.\tThe
\n       complainant mentioned this fact to his manager and also that
\n       he had been told by the Income-tax Officer that his accounts
\n       were  unsatisfactory.   Because he was asked to\tdo  so\tthe
\n       complainant  saw\t the respondent at the\tlatter’s  house\t on
\n       October\t6  or  7 and he asked the  complainant\tif  he\thad
\n       brought\tthe money and after some talk about the\t assessment
\n       the respondent asked the complainant -to pay half the amount
\n       as  it was Deepavali time.  There is evidence of\t a  defence
\n       witness\talso to show that towards the end of October  1951,
\n       the  complainant was seen coming from the house of  the\tre-
\n       spondent\t though the prosecution and the defence are not\t in
\n       accord as to the purpose of this visit.\n<\/p>\n
       583<\/span><\/p>\n
       The  Circle  Inspector, Munisami P. W. 12,  claims  to  have
\n       received\t complaints  while at Madras about  the\t respondent
\n       being  corrupt  and his ” indulging in  corrupt\tpractices”.
\n       He then came toCoimbatoreandgot into touchwith the complain-
\n       ant  and asked him if he had paid  anybribetotherespoiident.
\n       The complainant mentioned to the Inspector about the  demand
\n       of  a bribe by the respondent.  At the instance of  the\tIn-
\n       spector the complainant appeared before the Tehsildar-Magis-
\n       trate  who  recorded his statement P-17\twherein\t the  whole
\n       story  of  the demand of the bribe has been  set\t out.\tThe
\n       Inspector  then gave ten one hundred currency notes -to\tthe
\n       complainant  after their numbers were taken down in Ex.\t P-\n<\/p>\n
       17.  The complain ant then went to the office of the accused
\n       but no money was accepted on that day because the respondent
\n       had  received an anonymous letter Ex.  P-18 warning, him\t of
\n       the trap which was being laid by the Malayalam people.\tThe
\n       respondent  naturally got very annoyed with the\tcomplainant
\n       and  sent him. away.  The same evening the  complainant\twas
\n       told that he was required to go to the house of the respond-
\n       ent  on\tthe following morning which he did at 8 a.  m.\tThe
\n       respondent  told\t him that he should take no notice  of\tthe
\n       anonymous  letter which must have been sent by  his  enemies
\n       and asked him to pay some money.\t The complainant paid a sum
\n       of  Rs.\t200  which on his return he entered  in\t his  kacha
\n       account\tbook  which  the High Court  has  rejected  without
\n       sufficient  reason.   On\t the evening of\t November  15,\tthe
\n       complainant  again went to the house of the  respondent\tand
\n       the latter told him that he would pass final orders and that
\n       money  should be paid.  The record, P-7 and P-7\t(a),  shows
\n       that an order was dictated on November 13 although there\t is
\n       no proof or even indication that the complainant knew  about
\n       it.  The complainant was given 8 one hundred rupee notes\t by
\n       the Inspector and the complainant paid them to the  respond-
\n       ent on the morning of November 17 at the latter’s house.\t On
\n       this occasion the complainant accompanied by his manager\t P.
\n       W.  14  had gone towards the house of the  respondent  along
\n       with the Magistrate and Circle Inspector and Venkates, lyer
\n       584<\/span>
\n       P.   W. – 14 in a car which was stopped three or four blocks
\n       away from the house of the respondent and only the complain-
\n       ant  and\t his manager went into the respondent’s\t house\tand
\n       paid the money.\tTwo or three minutes later the Inspector P.
\n       W.  12 and the Magistrate P. W. 13 and one Sesha\t Ayyar\twho
\n       had  joined the party en route also came into the  house\t on
\n       receiving  the signal from the complainant.  They  disclosed
\n       their identity to the respondent and told him that they\thad
\n       information that he had received Rs. 800 from the  complain-
\n       ant  as illegal gratification and asked him to  produce\tthe
\n       money  which  he\t had received from  the\t complainant.\tThe
\n       respondent did not say anything and got up from the chair on
\n       which he was sitting and tried to go into the house but\twas
\n       prevented  from doing so by the Inspector and he\t then  pro-
\n       duced  the  money from the folds of his\tdhoti.\t While\tthe
\n       mahazar\twas being prepared the respondent said that he\tbad
\n       received\t this  money  as a loan from  the  complainant\twho
\n       denied  this and said it had been paid as a bribe.  A  tele-
\n       gram  was then sent to the Superintendent of Special  Police
\n       Establishment and under his orders a case was registered and
\n       the investigation was then taken up by a Deputy Superintend-
\n       ent  of Police who searched the house of the  respondent\t on
\n       November\t 19 but no pronote seems to have been  received\t or
\n       taken  into  possession on that date.  A pronote\t with  four
\n       anna  stamps affixed was later produced in the court by\tthe
\n       respondent  on July 17,1952 during the course of his  state-
\n       ment  under  s. 342 Criminal Procedure Code but it  was\tnot
\n       mentioned to the Magistrate P. W. 13 by the respondent.
\n       The  charge against the respondent was that he had  obtained
\n       from  the  complainant Rs. 800 as gratification\tother  than
\n       legal  remuneration as a motive for the reward  for  showing
\n       favour to him in the exercise of official functions and\thad
\n       thereby committeed an offence punishable under s. 161 of the
\n       Indian  Penal Code read with a. 4 of the Prevention of  Cor-
\n       ruption Act (Act II of 47).\n<\/p>\n
       The explanation of the respondent was that be men tioned\t to
\n       the complainant about his money difficulties
\n       585<\/span>
\n       when accidentally he met him on the road towards the end\t of
\n       August  or  beginning of September  1951.   The\tcomplainant
\n       offered\tto  lend him Rs 1,000\/-.  At that time he  was\tnot
\n       aware that the complainant had an assessment pending  before
\n       him.   It  was the complainant who told him on  November\t 15
\n       when  he\t met him again that the anonymous  letter  was\tthe
\n       “‘work  of his enemies” and promised to advance the loan\t as
\n       previously promised and he also suggested that the  respond-
\n       ent  should execute a pronote for Rs. 1,000 which  would\t be
\n       attested by Venkatesa Ayyar to which he (the respondent) was
\n       agreeable.   The complainant paid Rs. 800 on the morning\t of
\n       November 17 and promised to pay Rs. 200 in the evening.\tThe
\n       respondent had the pronote ready and offered to hand it over
\n       in  the\tmorning but the complainant said he would  take\t it
\n       when ” he left the house “.\n<\/p>\n
       The learned Special Judge accepted the story of the prosecu-
\n       tion and after a careful analysis of the evidence found\tthe
\n       respondent  guilty of the offence charged and sentenced\thim
\n       to -six months simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
       On  appeal being taken to the High Court the learned  Single
\n       Judge  reversed the judgment and acquitted  the\trespondent.
\n       It will be convenient to give here the main findings of\tthe
\n       learned judge in his own words:\n<\/p>\n
       (i)” It is true that at the time when the money was accepted
\n       by The accused, the proceedings in relation to assessment of
\n       income  tax  on\tP. W. 8 were pending  before  the  accused.
\n       Naturally, therefore, if in such circumstances, the  accused
\n       should  receive\tmoney from an assessee,\t the  suspicion\t is
\n       readily\taroused that the money must have been paid only\t as
\n       an illegal gratification.  On going through the judgment\t of
\n       the learned trial Judge, I formed the impression that he was
\n       totally influenced by such suspicion.”\n<\/p>\n
       (ii)”  The  result  is that if the version of P.\t W.  8\tand
\n       thatof  the  accused  are balanced,  the\t probability  seems
\n       totilt the scale in favour of the accused’s version. In\tany
\n       case,  the evidence is not enough to show that the  explana-
\n       tion offered by the accused
\n       586<\/span>
\n       cannot reasonably be true, and so, the benefit of doubt
\n       must go to him.”\n<\/p>\n
       (iii)”  But this was not a case of ordinary lendee,  but\t an
\n       Income-tax Officer whose favour was needed by the lender.\n<\/p>\n
       (iv)”Evidence shows that in November, 1951, the accused\twas
\n       in  need\t of a sum of Rs. 1,000 and, for that  purpose,\thas
\n       asked P.W. 8 for a loan.”\n<\/p>\n
       (v)” In my view, the evidence does not necessarily make\tout
\n       a case that the accused must have accepted the money only as
\n       a bribe.\t ”\n<\/p>\n
       (vi)”  I do not therefore feel certain that the taking of  a
\n       loan  with  an obligation to repay it with  interest,  would
\n       fall within the meaning of the term I gratification’.  ”
\n       The  extent of the power of the Supreme Court  to  interfere
\n       with  a\tjudgment of acquittal was raised before us  by\tthe
\n       respondent’s counsel and it was contended that the jurisdic-
\n       tion exercised by this court under Art. 136 was the same\t as
\n       that exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy  Coun-
\n       cil and reliance was placed on a minority judgment by Venka-
\n       tarama Aiyar J. in Aher Raja Khima v. The State Of  Saurash-
\n       tra(1) where the learned judge after discussing the  various
\n       Privy  Council  judgments  and quoting a\t passage  from\tthe
\n       judgment\t of  this  court in Pritam Singh  v.  The  State(2)
\n       observed:\n<\/p>\n
       ”  The preceding article referred to in the opening  passage
\n       is  clearly article 134.\t Article 134(1) confers a right\t of
\n       appeal to this court in certain cases, in terms unqualified,
\n       on  questions both of fact and law, and if the scope  of\t an
\n       appeal  under  Article  136 is to be  extended  likewise\t to
\n       questions  of fact, then article 134(1) would become  super-
\n       fluous.\t It is obvious that the intention of the  Constitu-
\n       tion  in\t providing  for an appeal on  facts  under  Article
\n       134(1)(a)  and (b) was to exclude it under Article 136,\tand
\n       it strongly supports the conclusion reached in Pritam  Singh
\n       v. The State (3)that like the Privy Council this Court would
\n       not function as a further court of appeal on facts in crimi-
\n       nal cases.  ”\n<\/p>\n
       (I) [1955]2 S.C.R. 1285, 1301.\n<\/p>\n
       (2) [1950] S.C.R. 453, 458,
\n       587<\/span>
\n       The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramakrishna Ganpatrao  Limsey<\/a>
\n       (1)  was also referred to by counsel for the respondent\tand
\n       it was contended that the Supreme Court should not interfere
\n       with  the order of the High Court merely on the ground  that
\n       it  took a different view of the facts.\tThat was an  appeal
\n       which  had been brought on a certificate by the\tHigh  Court
\n       and  not by Special Leave of this Court.\t That judgment\twas
\n       considered  by  a Constitution Bench in State of\t Madras\t v.
\n       Gurviah\tNaidu & Co., Ltd.<\/a> (2) and S. R. Das,  Acting  C.J.,
\n       delivering  the judgment of the court pointed out that  that
\n       was  a  decision\t of a bench of three judges and\t not  of  a
\n       Constitution  bench  and the observation that there  was\t no
\n       provision corresponding to s. 417 of the Criminal  Procedure
\n       Code only emphasised that this Court should not in appeal by
\n       Special\tLeave interfere with the order of acquittal  passed
\n       by the High Court merely for correcting errors of fact or of
\n       law.   Gurviah  Naidu’s\tcase (2) was an\t appeal\t against  a
\n       judgment\t of acquittal and this court reversed the  judgment
\n       saying:-\n<\/p>\n
       ”  In  our view, the High Court erred in\t holding  that\tthe
\n       prosecution  had failed to establish their case and  in\tac-
\n       quitting the accused.\n<\/p>\n
       This  case  negatives  the contention that  under  Art.\t136
\n       interference  by this court with findings of High Courts\t in
\n       judgments  of acquittal is not intended.\t Even in  State\t of
\n       Madhya  Pradesh v. Ramakrishna Ganpatrao<\/a> (1) Mahajan J.\twas
\n       of  the opinion that the Supreme Court can  interfere  where
\n       the  High Court “acts perversely or otherwise improperly\t or
\n       has been deceived by fraud.  ”\n<\/p>\n
       In Pritam Singh v. The State (3) Fazl Ali J. after a careful
\n       examination  of Art. 136 along with the\tpreceding  articles
\n       stated the scope of the appeal under Art. 136 to be:-
\n       ”  Generally  speaking, this court will\tnot  grant  special
\n       leave,  unless  it  is shown that  exceptional  and  special
\n       circumstances  exist, that substantial and  grave  injustice
\n       has been done and that the case in question\n<\/p>\n
       (i)  A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 20.\n<\/p>\n
       (2)  A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 158, 161.\n<\/p>\n
       75<\/span><\/p>\n
       (3) [1950] S.C.R. 453. 458.\n<\/p>\n
       588<\/span><\/p>\n
       presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a  review
\n       of the decision appealed against.\n<\/p>\n
       Even the Privy Council in laying down the permissible limits
\n       for review in criminal matters included things ” so  irregu-
\n       lar  or so outrageous as to shock the very basis of  justice
\n       “. See Mohinder Singh v. The King<\/a> (1).\n<\/p>\n
       An  instance of this principle is the decision of the  Privy
\n       Council in Stephen Seneviratne v. The King (2) which will be
\n       discussed later in this judgment and which has been approved
\n       of by this court.\n<\/p>\n
       Interpreting the following words of s. 205 of the Government
\n       of India Act, 1935, “any judgment, decree or final order\t of
\n       a court ” and ” it shall be the duty of every High Court\t in
\n       British\tIndia to consider in every case “, Lord\t Thankerton
\n       in King Emperor v. Sibnath Bannerji (3) said :–
\n       “The purpose of the provision is to confer a right of appeal
\n       in every case that involves a substantial question of law as
\n       to the interpretation of the Act or of any Order in  Council
\n       made thereunder.\t ”\n<\/p>\n
       One  of the questions for decision in that case was  whether
\n       an  appeal lay in cases of habeas corpus.   Lord\t Thankerton
\n       there observed :\n<\/p>\n
       ”  In the absence of an express exception of  habeas  corpus
\n       cases,  and  having  in view the terms and  purpose  of\tthe
\n       section,\t their Lordships are unable to limit tile terms\t of
\n       the  section  by mere construction so as\t to  exclude  these
\n       cases from its operation.  ”\n<\/p>\n
       In Art. 136 the use of the words ” Supreme Court may in\tits
\n       discretion grant special leave to appeal from any  judgment,
\n       decree,\tdetermination,\tsentence or order in any  cause\t or
\n       matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the terri-
\n       tory of India ” show that in criminal matters no distinction
\n       can  be made as a matter of construction between a  judgment
\n       of conviction or acquittal.  In Bhagwan Das v. The State\t of
\n       Rajasthan<\/a>(4)  the  following, observation  of  the  Judicial
\n       Committee of the Privy Council in Stephen    Seneviratne\t v.
\n       The King(2) at p. 299:\n<\/p>\n
\t    (1) (I932) L.R. 59 I.A. 233, 235.(3)  (1945) L.R.  72
\n       I.A. 241, 255.\n<\/p>\n
\t    (2) A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 289.(4) A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 589.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   589<\/span><\/p>\n
       “.. …… there are here no grounds on the evidence,  taken
\n       as  a  whole, upon which any tribunal could  properly  as  a
\n       matter of legitimate inference, arrive at a conclusion  that
\n       the appellant was guilty……. ”\n<\/p>\n
       was quoted with approval and after an examination of all the
\n       facts  and circumstances of the case the Supreme\t Court\tre-
\n       versed  the judgment of conviction by the High  Court  under
\n       Art. 136.  The question for decision in the present case\t is
\n       whether\tit falls within the limits laid down in the  above-
\n       mentioned cases.\t This court will not readily interfere with
\n       the findings of fact given by the High Court but if the High
\n       Court  acts perversely or otherwise improperly  interference
\n       will be called for.\n<\/p>\n
       The  findings of the High Court in the present case are,\t to
\n       say the least, halting, and the approach to the whole  ques-
\n       tion  has  been such that it falls within what  Mr.  Justice
\n       Mahajan in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramakrishna  Ganpatrao<\/a>
\n       (1) described as ” acting perversely or otherwise improperly
\n       “.  Although the learned High Court Judge has in the  begin-
\n       ning of the judgment mentioned the presumption which  arises
\n       under s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947),
\n       the following passage in the judgment:\n<\/p>\n
       ”  in any case, the evidence is not enough to show that\tthe
\n       explanation  offered  by the accused  cannot  reasonably\t be
\n       true, and so, the benefit of doubt must go to him, ”
\n       is  indicative of a disregard of the presumption\t which\tthe
\n       law requires to be raised under s. 4. The relevant words\t of
\n       this section are:\n<\/p>\n
       ”  Where\t in  any trial of an offence  punishable  under\t s.\n<\/p>\n
       161\t  …………….it\tis    proved\tthat\t an
\n       accused……….   person has accepted…………….\tany
\n       gratification  (other than legal\t remuneration)………from
\n       any person,it shall be presumed unless thecontrary     is
\n       proved  that he accepted ……………… that\t gratifica-
\n       tion  as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said
\n       section 161 …………………..”\n<\/p>\n
       Therefore  where it is proved that a gratification has  been
\n       accepted, then the presumption shall at once arise\n<\/p>\n
       (i)  A.1.R. 1054 S.C. 20.\n<\/p>\n
       590<\/span><\/p>\n
       under the section.  It introduces an exception to the gener-
\n       al  rule\t as to the burden of proof in  criminal\t cases\tand
\n       shifts the onus on to the accused.  It may here be mentioned
\n       that  the  legislature has chosen to use\t the  words’  shall
\n       presume’ and not ‘may presume’, the former a presumption\t of
\n       law  and latter of fact.\t Both these phrases have  been\tde-
\n       fined  in the Indian Evidence Act, no doubt for the  purpose
\n       of that Act, but s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is
\n       in part materia with the Evidence Act because it deals  with
\n       a branch of law of evidence, e.g., presumptions, and  there-
\n       fore  should  have the same meaning.  ” Shall  presume”\thas
\n       been defined in the Evidence Act as follows:
\n       ”  Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court  shall
\n       presume\ta fact, it shall regard such fact as proved  unless
\n       and until it is disproved.  ”\n<\/p>\n
       It is a presumption of law and therefore it is obligatory on
\n       the  court to raise this presumption in every  case  brought
\n       under  s.  4  of the Prevention of  Corruption  Act  because
\n       unlike the case of presumptions of fact, presumptions of law
\n       constitute  a  branch of jurisprudence.\t While\tgiving\tthe
\n       finding quoted above the learned judge seems to have  disre-
\n       garded  the special rule of burden of proof under s.  4\tand
\n       therefore  his approach in this case has been  on  erroneous
\n       lines.\n<\/p>\n
       The  judgment  also  shows that certain\tsalient\t pieces\t of
\n       evidence were missed or were not properly appreciated.
\n       At  the time when the penalty notice was issued under s.\t 28
\n       of the Income-tax Act the respondent was not the\t Income-tax
\n       Officer\tat Coimbatore but by June 6, he had been posted\t at
\n       Coimbatore  and\tthe  note on the Penalty  File\tdated  June
\n       6,1951:\n<\/p>\n
       “put up proposal\t to I.A.C. for levy of standard penalty,”
\n       was made by him.\t Although this proposal was made on June 6,
\n       1951, it is not clear as to what final orders were passed in
\n       these  proceedings and when.  At least there is\tnothing\t to
\n       indicate that any intimation was given to the complainant in
\n       regard  to this matter.\tThe complainant has stated on  oath
\n       as P.W. 8:-\n<\/p>\n
       591<\/span><\/p>\n
       ”  I alone went to the accused on 28th September, 1951.\t He
\n       then told me that the penalty paper was not disposed of\tand
\n       that  the  accounts for the current year had not\t also  been
\n       gone through.”\n<\/p>\n
       On the day following this the respondent asked the complain-
\n       ant for illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000.  Counsel for the
\n       respondent  contended  that there was no\t occasion  for\tthe
\n       respondent  to  say anything about the  penalty\tproceedings
\n       because\tas far as he was concerned the\trecommendation\thad
\n       already\tbeen made by him but the real question\tis  whether
\n       the complainant was told as to what had happened or had\tany
\n       knowledge of this.  He states that he had none and there\t is
\n       nothing to indicate that he bad.\n<\/p>\n
       The  respondent\thas then stated that  the  complainant\twas
\n       known  to  him since 1942 when he, the respondent,  was\tthe
\n       Head  Clerk of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner  of\tIn-
\n       come-tax\t and  that  is the reason why towards  the  end\t of
\n       August  or the beginning of September when be  casually\tmet
\n       the  complain. ant on the road, he told him that he  was\t in
\n       financial  difficulties\tand the complainant offered  him  a
\n       loan  of\t Rs. 1,000 to be returned in easy  instalments\tand
\n       that  he did not know at that time that the complainant\twas
\n       an  assessee before him.\t This statement of  the\t respondent
\n       has -been accepted by the High Court without considering the
\n       following  important facts.  Notice was issued to  the  com-
\n       plainant\t and he filed his return on August 11,\t1951.\tThe
\n       notice  must  have been issued to the complainant  under\t a.
\n       22(2) of the Income-tax Act by the respondent himself as\t he
\n       was at that time the Income-tax Officer.\t So it is difficult
\n       to  believe  his statement about his not\t knowing  that\tthe
\n       complainant was an assessee before him and it is\t improbable
\n       that the respondent would mention his financial troubles\t to
\n       a  more\tor less casual acquaintance who\t has  neither  been
\n       shown  to  be  a banker, nor a money lender  nor\t a  wealthy
\n       person.\t The  complainant has stated that  he  visited\tthe
\n       respondent on 6th or 7th October, 1951, when he asked him if
\n       he had brought the money.  The complaint replied that he had
\n       no money to spare as he had purchased a house
\n       592<\/span>
\n       and  he\talso asked him if the respondent had  finished\tthe
\n       assessment.  The latter’s reply was that he would look  into
\n       the matter and also told him that the complainant might\tpay
\n       half  the amount (of the illegal gratification)\tbefore\tthe
\n       deepavali  time.. This statement the respondent\thas  denied
\n       but  the\t statement of the complainant as to his\t having\t no
\n       money  as  he had purchased a house has not  been  seriously
\n       challenged in cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
       The  complainant had been asked to produce the accounts\tand
\n       be did produce them on September 27.  The notes made by\tthe
\n       respondent  in P-7 and P-7(a) show that the accounts of\tthe
\n       complainant were not being accepted in regard to\t Coimbatore
\n       Hotel.  The portion of the order was :-\n<\/p>\n
       ”  All  the defects that are usual in hotel  accounts  exist
\n       here.”\n<\/p>\n
       In regard to Bhavanisagar hotel the note stated:\t :–
\n       ”  Purchases are not fully supported and sales are  reckoned
\n       from till takings.”\n<\/p>\n
       On  October  1,\t1951, the assesses had\tfiled  his  written
\n       statement and also some other documents.\t Nothing more seems
\n       to have been done till November 7, when the relevant part of
\n       the note on the file is:\n<\/p>\n
       “I  have been keeping this in order to compare  the  results
\n       with other nearby hotels.”\n<\/p>\n
       As  to why no enquiries could be made in the whole  of  this
\n       period is not clear from the assessment record and it  ]ends
\n       support\tto  the prosecution case that  the  respondent\twas
\n       making approaches to the complainant to get money from  him.
\n       The respondent during the pendency of assessment proceedings
\n       of  the complainant allowed the complainant to visit him\t at
\n       his  house and even paid visit to his cafe.  Even  according
\n       to  the\tfindings  of the High  Court  the  complainant\twas
\n       “needing\t the  favours”\tof the respondent who  on  his\town
\n       showing\twas  himself in dire need of a thousand\t rupees\t as
\n       he  had\tsucceeded in collecting only a thousand\t rupees\t by
\n       November2, and needed twice that amount for his son’s premi-
\n       um or security as he chooses to call it.\t No importance\twas
\n       attached to this aspect of the case by the learned
\n       593<\/span>
\n       judge  of the High Court.  In our opinion the learned  trial
\n       judge  correctly\t appreciated this part of  the\tprosecution
\n       case  and his judgment is not, as tile High Court has  said,
\n       coloured by nere suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
       On November 6, 1951, Circle Inspector Munisami contacted the
\n       complainant  and\t arrangement was made for Rs. 1,000  to\t be
\n       paid by the complainant to the respondent and the money\twas
\n       actually\t taken\tby the complainant and offered to  the\tre-
\n       spondent\t on November 8 which the respondent did not  accept
\n       as  he had received an anonymous letter Ex.  P-18 which\twas
\n       dated  November\t6, 1951 in which the  respondent  had  been
\n       warned that Malayalam people were attempting to “ruin  him”.
\n       In  spite of this warning the respondent continued  to  have
\n       truck  with  the complainant and actually accepted  Rs.\t800
\n       from  him.   It is true that when soon after the\t money\twas
\n       paid  and the Inspector P. W. 12 and the Magistrate P.W.\t 13
\n       arrived\tat the house of the respondent and asked him  about
\n       this  money he stated that he had taken it as a loan but\t in
\n       the  context it assumes a different complexion.\tThe  state-
\n       ment of the Magistrate P.W. 13 was:-\n<\/p>\n
       ”  While the mahazar. was being prepared the accused  volun-
\n       teered and told me that he had received the 800 rupees as  a
\n       loan from P.W. 8-the complainant.”\n<\/p>\n
       This  witness  had also stated that when he  went  into\tthe
\n       verandah\t of the house, he asked the respondent\twhether\t he
\n       had  received an illegal gratification from the\tcomplainant
\n       and  also asked him to produce the money.  The  accused\tdid
\n       not  say anything but got up from the chair and tried to\t go
\n       inside  the house which he was prevented from doing  by\tthe
\n       Inspector P. W. 12.  The witness added:\n<\/p>\n
       ” The accused was seen trembling and meddling with something
\n       under  the towel.  I asked the accused to remove the  towel.
\n       The  accused removed the towel.\tI saw some bulging  at\this
\n       waist  in  the dhoti be was wearing.  I asked him  again\t to
\n       produce the currency notes.  He produced them from the folds
\n       of  the dhoti be was wearing.  When producing  the  currency
\n       notes the accused did not say anything.”\n<\/p>\n
       594<\/span><\/p>\n
       No  real cross-examination was directed against\tthese  por-
\n       tions of the statement of the Magistrate P.W. 13 nor has the
\n       High  Court  correctly appreciated them or  given  them\tdue
\n       weight.\t The respondent produced before the  Special  First
\n       Class  Magistrate on July 11, 1952, an unsigned promote\tfor
\n       Rs.  1,000  executed by him in favour  of  the  complainant.
\n       That promote was not found in the house when the search\twas
\n       made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on November\t19,
\n       1951,  and it is not explained why the promote  should  have
\n       been  made for Rs. 1,000 when actually the amount  paid\twas
\n       only  Rs.  800 and why the respondent offered to\t give  this
\n       promote to the complainant without receiving full considera-
\n       tion.\n<\/p>\n
       These salient features of the case do not seem to have  been
\n       properly\t appreciated  or given due weight to  by  the  High
\n       Court and in our opinion the learned judge’s approach to the
\n       question whether the sum of Rs. 800 was an illegal  gratifi-
\n       cation or a loan is such that the judgment falls within\tthe
\n       words of Mahajan J. in Ramakrishna’s case (1), i.e. that the
\n       High  Court  has acted perversely or  otherwise\timproperly.
\n       The  evidence and the circumstances lead to  the\t conclusion
\n       that the transaction was not one of loan but illegal  grati-
\n       fication.\n<\/p>\n
       In  view of the finding that the sum of Rs. 800 was a  bribe
\n       and  not a loan it is not necessary to consider\twhether\t in
\n       this case the loan would be an illegal gratification  within
\n       s.  4  of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of  1947)\t or
\n       not.\n<\/p>\n
       We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the  judg-
\n       ment and order of the High Court of Madras and restore  that
\n       of the Special Judge of Coimbatore convicting the respondent
\n       of  the\toffence he was charged with.  The  respondent  must
\n       surrender to his bail bond.\n<\/p>\n
       Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
       (i) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 20,
\n       595<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957 Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 61, 1958 SCR 580 Author: K L. Bench: Kapur, J.L. PETITIONER: THE STATE OF MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: A. VAIDYANATHA IYER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/1957 BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. MENON, P. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1957-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-07T21:52:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-07T21:52:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957\"},\"wordCount\":4819,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957\",\"name\":\"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-07T21:52:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-07T21:52:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957","datePublished":"1957-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-07T21:52:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957"},"wordCount":4819,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957","name":"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-07T21:52:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-a-vaidyanatha-iyer-on-26-september-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109912\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}