The Telangana High Court has confirmed the acquittal of the Excise Officer as the demand of bribe was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In the instant case an appeal was filed under section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) 1973 against the order passed by the First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases on the acquittal of an Excise officer for committing corruption of demanding bribe.
The accused Prasad was an Excise Inspector Prohibition and Excise Station in Mahabubnagar district. On an auction conducted for running wine shops in Amangal village in the same district, the first and second prosecution witness became the highest bidders and paid ⅓ of the amount and on the procedure for paying the balance, a form was submitted before the accused SHO of the Excise Station. During the submission of the form the accused officer demanded a bribe of Rs. 4000/- from each.
An FIR was registered on the report of first prosecution witness. Later on the accused officer was caught with the phenolphthalein test by the authorities and was arrested under Sections 7 and 13(I)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. But the court acquitted the officer observing that prosecution has failed to prove guilt on the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
T. L. Nayan Kumar who appeared for the prosecution contended that the trial Court failed to examine the evidence available in right perspective and erred in acquitting the accused officer. He further submitted that the phenolphthalein test had proved positive and tinted notes were also recovered from the accused and the procedures were carried correctly.
A. Phani Bhushan, who appeared for the respondent submitted that as prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the benefit of doubt should be granted to the accused as per criminal law. He also submitted that the form was rejected to be signed because the form was incorrect. He further submitted that the test was turned to positive because the witness swiftly thrusted the notes when the officer was trying to reject.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi held that the form was incorrect because the door number mentioned in the form did not exist in the village mentioned there by misrepresenting the authority. The court also observed that the witnesses were making the trap cleverly therefore a reasonable doubt on the demand of doubt existed. Later on the second prosecution witness had turned hostile. The court confirmed the acquittal of the accused officer and dismissed the appeal as the demand of bribe had not been proved by the prosecution.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
