Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.7 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – PW1 alleged that Income Tax Officer-A2 made a demand of Rs.5 lakhs purportedly on behalf of appellant, Assessing Officer-A1 – PW1 approached CBI – PW1 is alleged to have informed A2 that he had in his possession only Rs.2 lakhs – Trap was laid – PW1 then went to the office room of A1, where he found only A2, to whom he handed over the envelope, which A2 put in his coat pocket – The Trap Laying Officer (TLO) and another constable caught hold of the hands of A2 and one of the independent witnesses, PW18 was asked to search A2 – Envelope was recovered – The notes were taken out from the envelope recovered from the coat pocket of A2 and both the hands of A2 being submerged in two separate tumblers of Sodium Carbonate solution, they turned pink revealing the taint of acceptance of the powdered envelope with the marked notes – Trial Court convicted both the accused persons u/s.120B of the IPC r/w s.7 of the PC Act – The High Court, by the impugned decision, found that there was no conspiracy proved and that there was no proof of a demand having been made by A2 and A1 – Correctness:
Held: This Court noticed from the evidence of PW22 that after fully corroborating the trap it was deposed that on being challenged, A2 remained mum – It was also testified that A2 tried to escape and take out the money – It was PW1 who pointed out the upper pocket of the coat of A2 where he had kept the envelope which was taken out by PW18 as fully corroborated by PW22 – PW10 also stated that the man apprehended in A1’s room turned pale – All these are relevant conduct of A2 pointing to his guilt fortified by the recovery of the marked cash from his body and his hands, coat and sweater, on being washed in the test solution, turning pink, as deposed by the witnesses – The order of acquittal passed by the High Court insofar as A2 is concerned, cannot be accepted – As far as, the trap proper is concerned, there is complete corroboration of the testimony of PW1 by that of PW22, the TLO – There is also sufficient corroboration from PW10 & PW18, the independent witnesses – The hand wash of A2 also stood established beyond doubt – The marked notes were identified from the numbers taken down in the HOM at the time of pre-trap proceedings, corroborated by all the above witnesses – There was neither proof of demand nor acceptance by A1 – However, the acquittal against A2 is set aside and order of the trial Court in convicting him for the offence u/s.7 of the PC Act is restored – The sentence of four years of RI handed down by the trial court is modified to one year, considering the age of A2. [Paras 28-30]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.