‘Amount was Towards Tax Arrears not Bribe’: Bombay HC Rejects State’s Plea in ‘Gramsevak’ Bribery Case [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has dismissed the State’s application seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of a Gramsevak in an ACB trap case, holding that the money accepted by the accused was not an illegal gratification but was clearly towards pending property tax dues of the complainant.

Justice Abhay S. Waghwase upheld the trial court’s 2018 judgment acquitting the accused, Balu s/o Kashinath More, of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution had alleged that the Gramsevak demanded ₹5,000, later negotiated to ₹3,000 as a bribe for issuing a certified extract of Form 8-A. Based on the complaint, the ACB arranged a verification and subsequently laid a trap at a hotel where the accused was allegedly caught accepting the money.

The State argued that the complainant and shadow panch consistently supported the prosecution case on both demand and acceptance, and that the trap transcript and panchanama established a fool-proof case of bribery which the trial court failed to appreciate.

However, the High Court noted that the complainant himself made crucial admissions during cross-examination. He conceded that he had property tax arrears and had previously paid ₹1,000 to the Gramsevak.

He also admitted that when he asked for the extract, the accused insisted that the arrears must first be cleared, and even when he paid ₹3,000 during the trap, the accused told him that another ₹500 was still due. These admissions, the court observed, directly established that the payment was related to tax recovery and not an illegal demand.

The shadow panch’s testimony further weakened the prosecution’s case. He too admitted that the complainant and accused primarily discussed property tax, that earlier payments were acknowledged, and that the Gramsevak explained property details and assessment.

Additionally, he conceded that he could not ascertain whether the money was a bribe or tax dues. The court held that this independent witness’s admissions corroborated the defence that no demand for illegal gratification had been made.

The Investigating Officer also made relevant admissions, including that he did not inquire into the civil dispute between the complainant and the village panchayat, did not examine the tax assessment process, and was aware that communications existed between the parties regarding property tax.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

He also admitted learning during the investigation that no tax assessment was fixed for the complainant’s vacant plot at the relevant time, further deepening doubts about the prosecution’s demand theory.

Therefore, the High Court agreed with the trial court that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused demanded or accepted illegal gratification. Instead, the material showed that the complainant had outstanding tax dues and the amount accepted was towards these arrears.

The court decided that there was no perversity or illegality in the acquittal and therefore no ground existed to grant leave to appeal. The State’s application was rejected accordingly.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates