9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnection with the allegation attributed against each of the accused. The order of the court below is well reasoned, not warranting revisional jurisdiction of this court. - CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1040/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2017 - THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA Sri Kiran S.Javali And Sri Chandrashekara K., Advs For the appellant. Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, SPL.PP For the Respondent. ORDER The revision petitioner (A-2) is aggrieved by the order of the Special Court in rejecting his application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him of the offences under sections 7 and 8 r/w Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and Section 120-B of IPC pursuant to a trap, claimed to have been set up by the respondent-CBI, purportedly to trap accused No.1 in an act of accepting bribe for showing official favour by agreeing to reduce the tax on income of the original complainant. Heard both. 2. The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that, the complainant being an income tax assessee filed a complaint on 7.9.2012 alleging that he is submitting his income tax returns in Bangalore from 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id ₹ 25,000/- and a receipt was passed on to him. The complainant appeared on his own before the Assessing Authority without the assistance of the 2nd accused. Since the complainant was not allowing the Assessing Authority to discharge his duties peacefully, he was informed by the said Authority to collect the order copy from this petitioner and pass on the acknowledgement. The Assessing Authority had informed that if he does not pay tax within six months, it would attract the penalty of ₹ 30 lakhs. The complainant was not willing to give cheques and offered to pay ₹ 5 lakhs cash and he wanted the petitioner to pay the 1st installment of tax and had stated that he will not commit default if permitted to pay in installments. When the complainant placed the trap money on his table towards payment of tax, the petitioner pushed back the amount by his hands and refused to accept the same. As per the recitals of the trap mahazar, the trap money was lying on the table. The complainant had replaced the money in a cover and then signaled the trap team. His hands were not subjected for sodium carbonate hand test. The 1st accused had not even touched the said money. 4. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was found that the Assessing Authority has not made entry about passing the order on 6.9.2012. The Assessing Authority had projected that if the bribe amount is not paid as demanded by him, the complainant will be imposed higher penalty. 9. Learned Spl.P.P. continues to submit that the Special Judge has gone in detail to the material on records and finds that the explanation now offered by the petitioner about pushing the tainted currency notes was not there in the written explanation submitted by him during the trap mahazar. As per the statement of the complainant, this petitioner gestured the complainant to give money, on the complainant handing over the tainted money kept in the cover, this petitioner took the currency notes, counted the same and kept back in the plastic cover and the above statement of the complainant cannot be brushed aside. The assessment order pertaining to 2009-2010 dated 6.9.2012 was seized from the chambers of this petitioner along with the tainted amount of ₹ 5 lakhs, in which the balance tax payable is shown as ₹ 31,86,487. From the order sheet maintained in respect of the proceedings seized from the office of the 1st accused, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the order waits for the compliance of illegal demand without disclosing that the order is already passed. The materials on record clearly show that even after passing the Assessment Order, it is not recorded in the proceedings book and not sent to tappal section. 11. Regarding the contention that there was no recovery from the 1st accused -The special court has considered this aspect of the matter and observed that the 1st accused himself had carried the office order to the office of the petitioner on a holiday. His voice sample is collected as per the standard procedure. The Trial Court in the body of its order has discussed this aspect of the matter filament wise. The petitioner himself had given his explanation stating that the complainant had approached him in respect of income tax matter and the order passed by the 1st accused had to be acknowledged by the complainant and the amount of ₹ 5 lakhs was to be given to accused No.1 and his office premises (chamber of A-2) is used for the purpose. Thus, the seized amount of ₹ 5 lakhs was the amount to be given to A-1 and he had not offered any reason as to why his office was used for receiving the bribe amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
