P.L.Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is an application in revision by Shri Rama Shankar Saukla, a lawyer practising before the Income-tax and Sales.tax Officers in Kanpur.
(2.) Shri Rikhabh Kumar filed a complaint against the applicant, on 18-6 1949, charging him with an offence, punishable under Section 420, Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint that Shri Shukla had induced the complainant to pay him Rs. 1,100 on the assurance that he had some influence with the Income-tax Officer, Kanpur, and that he would exert that influence to secure some relief in the assessment of income-tax on the complainant; but the applicant did nothing of the kind and it was subsequently discoverd that Shri Shukla had no such influence over the Income-tax Officer.
(3.) The Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence, recorded all the evidence produced in support of the prosecution and also examined Shri Shukla. Then he proceeded to hear arguments on behalf of the complainant and Shri Shukla and dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused. The learned Magistrate observed in his judgment that, after a careful consideration of the evidence on the record, he bad come to the decision that no prima facie case was made out against the accused, who must consequently be discharged. He, however, further observed: "The entire evidence and facts of the case boil down to practically this that the complainant and the accused made the illegal and void agreement between themselves that the latter shall exercise his influence over the Income-tax Officer Kanpur in obtaining some relief to the former in matters of assesement of income-tax. The accused, however, did not exercise the alleged influence he had over the Income-tax Officer and, as it turned out later, he had no influence over the said Income-tax Officer. The complainant filed this complaint under Section 420, Penal Code, with regard to the money he paid to the accused for the illegal act referred to above." After thus summarising his conclusions on the evidence the Magistrate stated the legal position thus: "There can be certainly no controversy about the legal aspect of this complaint and it must fail. If two cheats conspire to cheat a third party and later one of the two falls out, he cannot be said to have cheated the other cheat. The complainant wag essentially doing an improper act in engaging the accused to exercise undue influence on the Income tax Official and thus affect his decision. The contract could not be enforced in a civil Court for being void and opposed to public policy.";