The Bengaluru Court of Additional City, Civil and Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused Commercial Tax Enforcement Officer in the absence of reliable evidence.
According to his contention at that time, the accused demanded Rs.20,000/- as the bribe and received part payment of Rs.3,000/- on 25.10.2016.
It is further the case of the prosecution that on 28- 10-2016, the accused No.2 has demanded Rs.30,000/- bribe from the informant to not seize the vehicle loaded with scrap materials found in the transport office premises. However the informant was not interested in making payment of the bribe amount, and hence he lodged the first information statement before the police.
The Police, after registering the case, laid the trap and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused No.1. After completion of the investigation and on securing the prosecution sanction, filed the charge sheet against the accused.
After taking cognizance of the offences, presence of the accused was secured. The copy of the charge sheet and other documents were supplied, and the charges were framed against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
As per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to prosecute the accused, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction had been granted by the sanctioning authority. The permission was granted by the Government of Karnataka.
The defence lawyer contended that the sanction was issued mechanically.
The demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non, essential to constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The defence submitted that at the time of the trap the tainted currency notes were forcibly thrust with sole intention to falsely implicate him in the trap proceeding. Both the accused in their defence have specifically denied the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe from the informant.
The Court also observed that, the accused has suspected the transaction and for the purpose of physical verification of the goods in transit and for confirmation of the genuineness of the transaction has seized the vehicle under Section 53 (8) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
The prosecution has further failed to prove that on 3.11.2016 the accused No.1 has demanded the bribe or on the date of trap 4.11.2016 he has demanded and accepted Rs.47,000/- bribe, the Lakshminarayana Bhat K, the Additional City, Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge(P C Act), Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru observed. Thus, the accused was acquitted and granted bail. The Prosecution Witness-2, complainant was thereby issued with summons calling upon him to show cause why he should not be directed to pay the compensation to the accused No.1 and 2 for false prosecution.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
