Khandige Sham Bhat and Others v. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer

Subba Rea J. SuBBA RAO, J.-These two petitions filed

under Art. 32 of the Constitution by different parties are directed against the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kasaragod, and the State of Kera la, for a declaration that s, 2A of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as amended by Kerala Act 11 of 1959, (hereinafter referred to as tue Act) is constitutionally void and for quashing the orders of assessment made by the first respondent pursuant to the said provision-As it is eommon case that the decision in the first petition would govern the second one, it would suffice if the facts in the first petition were given.

Kasaragod Taluk, wherein the agricultural lands of the petitioner's family are situate, formed part of the district of South Kanara in the Madras State. Under the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956) the Kerala State comprising the following territories was formed: (a) the territories of the existing State ofTravancore-Ooching excluding the te:ritories transferred to the State of Madras by Section 4; and (b) the territories 0omprised in (i) Mdabar District, excluding the islands of Laccadive an<l Minicoy, and (ii) Kasaragod Taluk of Soutl;t .. ,- ' ' • , I . _i Kaaara District. Under the Act the territories 1962 comprised in Kasara,god Taluk of South Kanara District and the District of Malabar in the Madras Khandige Sham Bha4 v. State were constituted into a separate district Agricultural known as the Malabar District in the State of lncome·lax Officer Kerala. For convenience of reference we shall here-Subha llaoJ. inafter describe the territories carved out of the Madras State as Madras area and the rest as T-C area. After the formation of the State of Kerala on November 1, 1956, the laws in force in the State of M3.dras were continued in the Madras area and those in force in the Travancore·Cochin State were continued in the T.C. area. In the T.C. area agricultural income was liable to tax under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act (22 of 1950) which came into force on April 1, l!J51. After the formation of the Kerala State, the Legislature of that State enacted the Travaucore·Cochin Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1957. Whereunder the earlier Aot of 1950 was extended to the Madras area with appropriate amendments. Under the said Act agricultural income derived from lands situated throughout the State of Kerala became assessable with effect from assessment year 1957 58 . .Pursuant to the provisions of that Act the . Income-tax authorities started proceedings to assess the income derived from lands situated in the Madras area for the year 1957·58. Un a petition filed by some of the assessees, the Kerala High Court held that the State of Kerala had no authority to fovy tax on agricultural income which accrued before November 1. 1956, from lands situated in the Madras area and that the assessments for 1957-58 were not sustain-able under the Act even in res:nect of inc0me which a.rose after Novemuer 1, 1956, on the ground th~t the previous year, as defined under the Act, wail a period of twelve months ending on March 31, preceding the year for which assessment was to be

19~2 made. The result of the decision was that agricul-

tural income derived from lands in the Madras area Kha.mlige •• Sham Bh•t was not liable to tax for the assessment year 1957 .

Agricultural 58, whereas similar income from agricultural lands /11,ome•tax 0 .ffie1r situated in the T.C. area was liable to tax, indeed,

the income accrued between November I, 1956, and Subba R•o J. March 31, 1957, i. e., the income accrued after the

Madras area became part of the Kerala State, also could not be taxed. To remedy the situation brought about by historical reasons in the two geographical parts of the Kera.la State, the Government of Kerala promulgated on January 12, 1959 the Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance II of 1959. Subsequently the Kerala Legislature passed the Agricultural Income.tax (Amendment) Aot II of 1959 replacing the earlier Ordinance, hereinafter called the Amending Act.

Before the Amending Act was passed, the petitioner, who has lands in different villages in Kasaragod Taluk, submitted a return of the income of his family for the assessment .vear 1957-58, and on June 30, 1958, the concerned IncomP-tax Officer determined the petitioner's net income for thfl accounting period April l, 1956, to March 31, 1957, and the tax payable thereon. The peti-tioner preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-t,ax, Kozhikode, against the order of the Income-tax Officer questioning the said assessment on the ground, inter alia, that the assessment was made arbitrarily. When that appeal was pending, the judgment of the Kerala High Court was delivered and subse-quently Ordinance II of 1959 was promulgated. The Assistant Commissioner, therefore, set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the decision of the Kerala High Court and remanded the matter to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for disposal in accordance with law. After remand, on March 23, 1959, tho Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioner to submit 196! his return of agricultural income for the assessment year 1957-58 in accordance with the provisions of Khandige Sham Bhal v. the Ordinance and the subsequent Amending Act Agricultural replacing the said Ordinance. On November 10, 1960, Income-tax O jfw1r the Income-tax Officer determined the net income Subba Rao. J. of the petitioner for the assessment year 1958-59 at Rs. 87,745.36 and assessed the tax at Rs. 21,920.41;

the tax was calculated on the average net annual income of the petitioner for 12 months under the proviso to s. 2A of the Act. The petitioner seeks to set aside that assessment on the ground that the said section offends Art.14 of the Constitution and therefore the asses11ment was bad.

Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the classification of Kerala State into two parts, i.e,.~ the Madras area and the T-C area, has no rational relation to the object of the Act, na.nely, imposition of agricultural income-tax, for, as the two parts belong to the same State, no post·amalgamation law can treat asseRsees of the same State differently in the matter of taxation.

He further contends that there is discrimination between assesee!'s of Kasaragod Taluk and those of the other part of the Madras area inasmuch as under s.2A of the Act the average annual income would be the average annual income of 12 monthEI out of 17 months, with the result that the assessees of Kasaragod Taluk whose entire income accrued after November I, 1956, were unjustly discriminated from assessees of the other part of the Madras area. whose income accrued only before November 1, 1956. He also contends that in any view the basis adopted for ascertaining the rate was arbitrary and unreasonable as 24 months' income was taken B'B income for I 7 months.

1962 Learned Additional Solicitor General, on the ·.,._ j

other hand, Beeks to sustain the assessment on Ehandige Sham Bhat the ground that the classification was based on

v.

Ag,.i&ultural historical reasons, that on the face of the Act all Income.tax 0 j['icer the assessees falling within the class to which s.2A

Bubba Rao. applies are treated alike, that the State is entitled

to adopt one of the many modes av•ilable for ascertaining the rate, that whatever basis is adopted for ascertaining the rate there is bound to be some hard cases and that circumstance cannot conceivable affect the validity of the law. At the'-outset it would be convenient to notice briefly the Jaw on the doctrine of classification. The law on the subject is well settled and it does not require restatement in extenso. It would suffice if we noticed the principles relevant to the enqnirv. The law has been neatly and succinctly summarized in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar (')thus: "It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i)' that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and, (ii) that tha.t differentia must have a rational· relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question .. The classification may be founded on different ba~es, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the

.Act under consideration. It is also well J.96Z established that article 14 condemns discri-mination not only by a substantive law but Jrhandige Sham Bhat Y. also by a law of procedure.'' A gricullural lncom•-•wt Officer Though a law ex facie appears to treat all that fall within a class alike, if in effect it operates unevenly Subba Rao J, on persons or property similarly situatod, it may be said that the law offends the equality clause.

It will then be the duty of the court to scrutinize the effect of the law carefully to ascertain its real impact on the persons or property similarly situated. Conversely, a law may treat persons who appear to be similarly situated differently; but on investigation they may be found not to be similarly situated. To state it differently, it is not the ':t(

phraseology of a statute that governs the situation but the effect of the law that is decisive. If there is equality and uniformity within each group, the law will not be condemned as discriminative, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of a peculiar situation some J included in a class get an advantage over

others, so long as they are not singled out for special treatment. Taxation law is not an excep· tion to this doctrine : vide Purshottam Govindji Halai v. Shree B. N. Desai, .Additional Collector of Bombay (1) and K unnathat Thatunni M oopil Nair v.

State of Kerala (2). But in the application of the principles, the courts, in view of the inherent com-plexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements, permit a larger discretion to the I ... egislature in the matter of classification, so long it adheres to the fundamental principles underlying the said doctrine.

The power of the Legislature to classify is of "wide range and flexibility" so that it can adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways.

1961 Now Let us look at the impugned section. ··-f_

Section 2A of the Act reads :

JC handige •• Sham B/:al

A.gricultu,al ''Notwithstanding anything contained in Income-tllX Ojfic1r clause (Oj of section 2, "previous year" for the assessment for the financial year commencing • ~uliba Rao J. from the 1st day of April 1958 and so far as such assessment relates to the agricultural income derived from lands situated in the Malabar Dietriot referred to in sub-section ( 2) of section 5 of the States ReorganiZlltion Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956), shall be the whole period commencing on the lst day of November, 1956 and ending on the 31st day of March, 19:58, or, if the accounts of the assessee have been made up to a date within the financial year ending on the 31st day of March 1958, then, at the option of the assessee, the period commencing on the 1st day of November. 1956 and ending on the aforesaid date to which, the accounts have been so made up :

Provided that - (i) notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 and 56, the agricultural income-tax and super-tax chargeable on the total agricultural income of the previous year as reckoned in this section shall be at the rates applicable to the "average annual income" according to the Schedule ; such "average annual income" shall be an amount bearing to the aforesaid total agricultural income the same proportion as the period of twelve months bears to the period of the previous year as defined in this section ; and

(ii) the limit of exemption from cha.rgeability 1962

to tax shall be determined with reference to the "average annual income''. Khandig1 Sham Bhat v. Agricultural The Malabar Diatrict in the state of Kerala is Income-tax Ojficar constituted by combining Kasa.re.god Taluk of the South Kt\na.ra. District and the District of Malabar Subba Rao. J. of the Madras State. For the purpose of assessment for the financial year 1958-59 in respect of agricul-tural income derived from the said district, s. 2A of the Act gives a. special definition of "previous year". Under that definition, "previous year"

commences from November 1, 1966 and ends on March 31, 1958, i.e., a period of 17 months; but the assessee can elect a lesser period as ''previous year"

if his accounts are made up to a. date within the J. financial year ending on March 31 1958, that is to 1 say he can elect any date commencing from April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1958, if hie accounts are made up to that date in which case the "previous year"

so for as he is concerned will commence from November 1, 1956, and end on the said date so chosen by him. The proviso to the section pres-cribes a mode of ascertaining the rate of tax in regard to the said income : it lays down that in respect of the said income the rates are those applicable to the "average annual income'' accord· ing to the Schedule. The ''average annual income", as defined in the proviso, will be twelve-seven-teenths of the total income of the previous year as defined in the section, Under the section, therefore, the assessee in the Ma.dra s area will be liable to pay agricultural income-~ax on the income accrued to him during the 1 7 months commencing from November 1, 1956, and ending on March 31, 1958, but the rate of tax payable by him is that applicable to the "average annual income " so defined. The question is whether this section infringes Art. 14 of the constitution or whether it can be justified on the basis of the

1962 doctrine of classification. In the narration of facts .. we have stated why it became necessary for the lihandiie Sham Bhat Lagislature to insert s.2A in Act 22 of 1950. By

Agricultural reason of the States Reorganization Act, the said [-,icome·t1x Of}t'cer Madras area became part of the Kera la State on Subba Rao J. November l, 1956. By reason of the decision of the

Kerala High Court, agricultural income-tax could not be imposed in respect of income accrued to asaessees in the Madras area between April I, 1956, and March 31, 1957, and it was also not possible to tax them for their income even for that part of the year after it became part of the Kera.la State: with the result, the legislature was confronted with two geographical divisions in respect of one of which the said law of agricultural income·tax could not be enforced-while the assessees in the T-C area were liable tll agricultural income-tax in rBgard to their in-come from their lands for the yPar commencing from April I, b56, and ending on March 31, 1957, the iucome of the agriculturists in the Madras area could not be reached by that law in respect of the whole or part of that year. These differences between the two parts of the State which originated from histori-cal reasons were the basis of classification for the purpose of taxation. The object of making the classification was not to discriminate against the agriculturists of the Madras area but to brin~ them into line with the agriculturists f, om the rest of the Kera.la State in so far as the liability to pay agri-cultural income-tax was concerned. The existing law had therefore to be appropriately adapted for securing this end. In these circumstances, can it be said that there was no reasonable nexus between the classification and the object of the legislation? The object of the legislation thus was to impose agricultural income-tax on assessees in the Madras area and al8o in respect of the period between November I, 1956, and March 31, 1957, which could not be done under pre-existing law. The differences between the two parts of the State 1962 have reasonable nexus to the said object. Because of the said differences the legislature thought that Khandige Sham Bho.I v. the definition of "previous year" should be so Agricultural amended in respect of the Madras area that the I nco:ne-tax 0 Jl.,cer assessees in that area. may not escape payment of Sub~a Rao J, agricultural income-tax in respect of the period after the said area formed part of the Kerala State., It is argued that this Court sustained the constitu-tional validity of a law on geographical and territorial bases only in a case where the said law was a pre-existing law in an erstwhile State which.

continued to be law in the area of that State after it merged in the larger unit, and that it cannot be invoked where the law is for the first time enacted after the merger, for, it is said, in th<tt event the law governs the new State as an indivisible unit. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Shri K ishan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan(1) and Purshottam Govindji Halai v. Skree B.M. Deiai, Additional Collector of Bombay (2). But a perusal of the Judgments docs not bear out the contention. The validity of classification does not wholly depend upon the source of law; the law may be a pre-exis-ting law or one th!Lt was enacted after merger.

What is important is to ascertain the existing circum-stances in the two parts merged into one by historical events in order to determine whether the differences between the two have a reasonable nexus to the ob-ject of the said law. For the reasons already stated, we hold that the classification in the present case is founded on an intelligible differentia. between the assessees of the two parts of the State, and that the said differences ha.ve rational relationship to the object of the Amending Act.

But it is said that the mode .of ascertaining the average annual income for the purpose of finding the

co [I955J 2 s.c.R. 531. c2> [t95'5J 2 s.c.R. ss1.

1P62 rate is arbitrar~ and unreasonabre and that discri-Khandig6 Sham Bhat mination is inherent in such a law adopting such

v arbitrary process. This argument is elaborated thus : -Agricultural The major income of the petitioner's family is from /ncome ... tax 0 jfic~r

arecanut, pepper and cocoanut; the said crops are Subba Rao J. gathered between the months of November and

March; the season for harvesting arecanut in Kasaragod Taluk is from November to March; the 'whole year's pepper and cocoanut are gathered between the months of January and March; therefore, the income from arecanut, pepper and cocoanut accrued to the petitioner between November 1, 1956 ·and March 31, 1957, is the income for the entire year; but under the proviso to s. 2A of the Act, the said income is treated as the income for 5 months only, with the result that 24 months' income is treated as 17 months' income; this is an arbitrary assumption underlying the provision; instead it should have taken 12/24th of the total income as the average annual income. This arbitrary method of fixing the average annual income invol-ved the payment of higher rate of tax by the aseessees in Kasaragod Taluk as compared to the assessees in other parts of the State. It is suggested that a more reasonable course would have been to tax the a 0sessees in the Madras area for the income that accrued to them during the 5 months by treating the eaid income as the income for the entire year commencing from April 1, 1956, and ending on March 31, 1957, and that in that event not only their income for the said period could not have escaped taxation but it would have also avoided the unjust treatment meted out to them in the rate of tax. Prima'Jacie there appears to be some plausibility in this argument; but a closer examination discloses that though the method sugges-ted may have been better than the method actually adopted, the hardship in individual oases cannot in any event b_e avoided. It is true taxation law cannot claim immunity from the equality clause of 'the 1962 Constitution. The taxation 11tatute shall not also be /( handige Sham ha I arbitrary and oppressive, but at the same time the v. court cannot, for obvious reasons, meticulously Agricultural scrutinize the impact. of its burden on different Incom1·tax Officer persons or interests. Where there is more than one Subba Rao J. method of assessing tax and the Legislature selects one out of them, the court will not be justified to strike down the law on the ground that the Legislature should have adopted another method which, in the opinion of the court, is more reason- · able, unless it is convinced that the method adopted is capricious, fanciful, arbitrary or clearly unjust.

From the standpoint of the test, let us look at the impugned legislation. The taxability of the income accrued during the 5 months is not in question. But the attack is on the manner in which the rate is ascertained. The statute does not fix different rates for the two areas. The nte is the 1ame though it varies uniformly depending upon the different slabs of the annual income of tP,e previous year. The vice of the provision, if at all, lies in the mode of ascertaining the average annual income of the previous year and it is true that if the said mode is arbitrary, the same arbitrariness would attach to the rate. But the rate must neces11arily relate to the annual income of the previous year. Diverse methJds may be adopted by the Legislature to 11,scertain the annual income for fixing the rate, namely: (1) 12/17 of total income of the 17 months ; ( :l) the 5 months'

income being treated as 12 months' income and the annual average income ascertained as 12/24th or half of the total income accrued during the 17 months ; (3) it may adopt the first 12 months' or the last 12 months' or the middle 12 months' income as the annual income; and (4) treating the 5 months' income as 12 months' income and separately taxing it without clubbing it with the incom~ of the subsequent year. Whatever

824 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963)

106! method is adopted, there is bound to be hardship in

some cases and advantage in others. For instance, Kh-1ndige Sham Bhat under the Agricultural Income-tax Act assessees

v.

Agricultural getting an income below Rs. 3,000/- are exempted lncome·ta'C Ojfictr from taxation. Under the impugned section the

Subba RaoJ. limit for exemption from taxation ;hall be deter-

mined with reference to the average annual income. Suppose the annual income for the 12 months commencing from April 1, 1957, and ending on March 31, 1958, is above Rs. 3,000/-; the assessees in the T-0 area would be liable to pay income-tax, but a particular assessee in the Madras area may have earned comparatively smaller income during the 5 months bringing down the average annual income below Rs. 3,000/- and he escapes asRessment altogether. Assume again that the assessee gets more than Rs, 3,000/- during the 5 months ; but he may have got very low income in the succeeding 12 months with the result that his annual average income may fall below the range of taxable income, while the assefisee in the T-C area, who has got; a similar income for 1956·57, would be liable to tax. It is also true that if the assessee in the Madras ar11a gets very high inoome during th ise 5 months and little less than the taxable income during the succeeding 12 months, his income, which would have escaped taxation, would be liable to tax. These illustrations prove that the section does not always work to the disadvantage of assessees similarly situated like the petitioner. but its effect would depend upon fortuitous circumstances, such as the quantum of income accrued during the 5 months and during the succeeding 12 months. That apart under the section an option is given to the assessee to select his accounting year commencing from November 1, 1956, and ending on a date within March 31, 1958, upto which his accounts have been made. If an agriculturist in the Male.bar ·area had made up his accounts on a date which does not exceed a. period of 12 months from Novem-196S ber 1, 1956, he cannot have any complaint on the score that the rate fixed is arbitrary. But it is K handige S fam hat v. said that agriculturists in the Madras area do not Agricultural keep accounts or at any rate would not have kept Income-tax 0 jfi&er accounts before the Amending Act and therf'fore Subba Rao J, this argument is not realistic. But the record does not disclose that agriculturists of Malabar area dealing in cash crops, like arecanut, do not keep accounts or make up their accounts on a particular date. Anyhow, the law gives an option to agricul· turists to adopt an alternative method in case the rate fixed on the basis of average annual income would be disadvantageous to them. The fact that they do not keep such an account could not be an argument to support the arbitrariness of the legisla-tion. But these advantages or disadvantages to individual assessees are accidental and inevitable artd are inherent in every taxing statute as it has to1 draw a line somewhere and some cases necessa-ril\y fall on the other side of the line. That apart, the tabular statcmen t showing the area undHr the principal crops and their harvesting and markAting seasons in the Kerala State does not establish that in Kasaragod Taluk the entire crop of the year was halrveilted after November an i in the rest of Kera la before November. The following is the said state-ment:

T. C. area MADRAS AR~A Total area O> Crop 6 Districts ----·---------- for Palghat Calicut Cannanore Kera.la State ~ (in a.ores) (in acres) (in acres) ~ Paddy 9,07,108 4,67,544 2, 77,923 2,46,229 18,98,804 ~ Tapioca 4,89,884 8,455 40, 134 14,824 5,53,207 8 Coooanut 7,74,667 45,449 2,36,295 1,19,014 11,75,425 Cl .., ~ Arecanut 50.534 17,292 35,236 20,771 1,23,833 Cardamon 65,879 4,284 2,600 993 73,756 ~ :; t:i;j Pepper .87,216 8,449 31,585 96,666 2,23,916 Tea 78,043 1,459 9,801 3,685 92,988 !;C ~ Coffee 5,198 4,909 26,787 3,166 40,060 C1.I - ~ Rubber 2,10, 703 10,104 35,600 14,219 2,70,626 co ._, O> c:.o Lemongrass 35,000 4,500 500 40,00©

Crop Harvestiag Marketing Season Season Paddy Autumn, August September to

to October. October. "I Winter: December January to

··~y to February: February.

Summer: March to April. February to March.

Tapioca November to Dec. to Feb. & June & July July to Aug, to - Aug.

Cocoanut Areoanut 1. Travancore-June to Nov. Coe.bin Nov. to March 2. S. Mi:tlabar June to November-3. N. Malabar Nov. to March Cardamon August to October to December January Pepper November to December to January February Tea --- --- Coffee November to September to -- March April Rubber --- Lemongrass June to September September 1962 It shows that in Cannanore, whioh includes Kasa-Kf.andige Sliom Bhat ragod Taluk, only areoanut, pepper, tea, coffee and

v. rubber are harvested after November, but in the Ag1Uultural case of paddy. tapioca coconut and lemongrass the lr1c0me· lax 0 jficer

harvesting season is before November; cardamon Subba Raa J. is gathered partly before November and partly after

November. The same is the position in regard to the entire State except in respect of arecanut; even in v respect of arecanut, it is harvested in the Madras area other than Cannanore before November. The net result of this analysis is that in regard to a large extent of land cultivated in· Kerala the harve-sting season is the same in respect of all the crops except arecanut and even in the case of arecanut out of 1,23,833 acres cultivated with that crop the harvesting s'ason in regard to 20, 771 acres alone commences after November. In such a situation it cannot be said that the Legislature has arbitrarily, with an evil eye, selected the most advantageous period for the purpose of fixing the rate of taution. The said discussion leads to the only conclusion that the Legislature in its sincere attempt to meet a d1ffic11lt situation made a law adopting one of the ...., diverse methods open to it and even the method adopted cannot be said to be either unreasonable or arbitrary, as the overall picture indicates that it works fairly well on all similarly situated, though some harrlship may he caused to some in the imple-mentation of the law which is almost inevitable in every taxa.tion law. We 0annot, therefore, say that in the present case the one method adopted instead of another is either arbitrary or capricious. The next argument is that there is discrimina-tion between assessees in Kasaragod area and those in the rest of the Madras area in that in the case of arecanut the assessees of Madras area, other than Kasaragod Taluk, would be in a better position as they gather their crops before November. The &ssessees of the Madras area under the Act formed 196[J one class and s. 2A applies to all of them : s. 2A Khandige Sham Bha ,., I applies to both parts Of the Madras Area, i. e., the Malabar area and the South Kanara area. In both Agricultural Income-tax ff"' the cases the income of the assessees that accrued before November I, 1956 was not taxable; in both Subba Rao .1. the cases the income that accrued thereafter is liable to tax. The rate also is the same. The statement only shows that all the crops, except arecanut, are gathered by the assessees of the entire area during the same period. The fact that in the case of one of the crops the assessees in the Malabar area . harvested earlier cannot be a ground for holding

that the law has made an unjust discrimination between persons beloning to the same class, but that is due only to the fortuitous circumstance of some assessees gathering the crops earlier than others. As we have pointed out, the arecanut crop is only one of the many crops in that area and the extent of its cultivation in Kasaragod Taluk is com· paratively lesser than that in the entire area of the State or even the Madras area. We cannot, ·therefore, say that the law made an unjust discri-mination between persons belonging to the same class.

There is another aspect which may have a bear-ing on the question raised. The impugned section is a temporary provision intended to apply only for one year to tide over a difficult situation brought about by the reorganization of States. It is true that every law, whether it is temporary or perma-nent, cannot infringe Art. 14 of the Constitution;

but in considering the question of reasonableness of the legislation this circumstance will have some bearing, particularly when the Legislature Selected one of the many methods open to it. Though the method selected may not be as good as others, we cannot hold that it is unreasonable and, therefore, lia.ble to be struck down.

Khandig1 •• Sham Bhat In the result the petition is dismissed with

Atricu1'ural costs.

Ineome.tax Officer It is common case that this decision will Suhba Raa J. govern the other petition also, namely, Writ Peti-tion No. 104 of 1961. The said petition also is dismis-sed with costs. There will be one set of hearing fee. This order is without prejudice to the order for costs made on 16-3-1962.

Petitions dismissed.

-- BHIVA DOULU PATIL

Augual 21. v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTJ:tA

(J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR apd

M. HrDAYATULLAH, JJ.) '

Criminal 1'rial-Approver-Corroboration, if necessary L qua each accused-Indian Evidence Act, 1872(1 of 1872), 88. 114,133 .

.The appellant and R were convicted for murder on the testimony of an approver corroborated by the recovery at the instance of R of the knife with which the murder was commit-ted and of the evidence that the appellant and R had got the knife prepared nine weeks before the murder. The appellant contended that his conviction was illegal as there was no corrobo-ration of the testimony of the approver so far as he was concerned.

Held, that the conviction of the appellant was not sus. tainable. The law required that there should be corrobora-tion of the approver in material particulars and. qua each accused. The combined effect of ss. 133 and 114 illustration (b) is that though the conviction of an accused on the testi-mony of an accomplice could not be said to be illegal, the courts will not accept such evidence without corroborat:ion in

-- 19611 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No.

103 of 1961.

Klwndig1 Sham Bhat

v. Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Agricultural India for.enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Income-tax Officer G. S. Pathak and R. Gopalakrislinan, for the petitioners ..

H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India and Sardar Bahad1tr, for the respondents. 1962. August 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by