JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal preferred by the State of Madras against the acquittal by the learned Special Judge of Chingleput in C.C. No. 8 of 1955.

2. The case for the Prosecution is : The complainant Rajabadar, P.W. 2 is the owner of a tea stall in the bazaar road in Saidanet, a Suburb of the City of Madras. He has been carrying on this tea stall for the last ten years. P.W.2 is the owner of a house in the same street bearing door No. III, worth Rs. 5000/- P.W. 2 was getting from his tea stall business a monthly income of Rs. 100.

3. Five years ago P.W. 2 had installed a radio set in the tea shop. In fact in the City of Madras such radios which are played practically during the working hours have become the standard equipment. P.W. 2 was taking out licence for two years and was using the radio with the help of the electric connection from a neighbouring house. But later that neighbour is said to have refused to give the electric connection and the radio also is said to have gone out of order. P.W. 2 did not apply for a licence.

4. In the month following Pongal of 1934 one Inspector came and asked on seeing the aerial as to where the radio was and where was the licence. P.W. 2 showed the old licence and also told him that the radio was in repair and he had also no electric connection and that therefore did not renew the licence. That Inspector asked him to give a letter to that effect. So a neighbour was called for reducing into writing this information as P.W. 2 is an unlerttered man and can only sign his name. The neighbour wrote down the statement, read it out to P.W. 2 and it was signed by P.W. 2 and handed over to the Inspector. The letter is Ex. P-2.

5. Four months later another Inspector turned up. P.W. 2 told him the same thing and gave also a statement written down by one Mitran. It is Exhibit P-3.

6. One month later for the third time the Inspector who came first and this accused Thomas who is a wireless licencing Inspector came to P.W. 2 and asked him where the radio was. P.W. 2 took them to his house and showed the radio. Ten days later he received a cover from the post office containing 4 or 5 papers. On showing them to a friend he was told that Rs. 45/- were required to be deposited for the radio licence at the rate of Rs. 15 per year for two years with penalty of Rs. 15/-.

The letters received by P.W. 2 are Exs. P-4 and P-5 of which the latter consists of four sheets P.W. 2 sent a reply Ex. P-6. Then he received a further notice demanding the amount, Ex. P-7. Subsequently he received by Registered post Ex, P-8 and P.W.2 sent the reply Ex. P-9. Then he got a peremptory demand Ex. 10, P.W. 2 applied for three months time for payment under Ex. P-II.

7. A week or 8 days thereafter the accused came to the shop of P.W. 2 and told him that the festival was approaching and that he wanted Rs. 20/- and that he would see the radio matter being closed without P.W. 2 paying any penalty. P.W.2 told the accused that he had no money and that if he had money he would have paid. Thereupon the accused left the place.

8. In the month of Pongali of 1955 on the last Thursday of the month viz., 27th according to the English date, the accused came and adopted a minatory tone and addressed P.W. 2 saying that he was neither paying the money into the office nor the douceur for the festival to himself and that the net result would he that he (P.W.2) was going to be prosecuted. P.W. 2 appealed to him to put off the prosecution saying that he would pay him the douceur sometime later. The accused thereupon asked P.W.2 to see him near the office as it was. Saturday and hall-holiday for him and come with Rs. 20/- P.W. 2 agreed reluctantly.

9. P.W. 2 then went and consulted his friend Mitran about what the accused told him. That Mitran advised P.W. 2 to go and inform the Special Police Establishment, Purasawalkain which has been set up for putting down offences of this kind by public officials. Unfortunately this Mitran could not be examined