The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to the corruption accused Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), observing that the appeal is not likely to be decided within a short period.
The prosecution’s case was that the accused-applicant was working as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Rajkumar Khushlani was the partner of M/s. Aditya Enterprises.
He was told by Prosecution Witness-6 (PW-6) Arun Patil about what the accused No.2 had told him. PW-6 and PW-3 met the present applicant. It is the prosecution case that the applicant initially demanded a bribe of Rs.35 lakhs and after some negotiations it was brought down to Rs.15 lakhs. PW-3 and PW-6 did not want to pay that amount. They approached the C.B.I. and lodged the complaint.
Ultimately, on the day of trap i.e. on 21/01/2009, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was kept in a paper packet. Everything was sprinkled with phenolphthalein powder. It is alleged that the accused No.2 accepted that packet in a car.
After he was caught, His left hand was dipped in sodium carbonate solution. The liquid turned pink. The liquid was sent for chemical analysis which also confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein powder. On these allegations, both the accused were tried and ultimately convicted.
Jagdish Shetty, for the applicant submitted that the C A report (Chemical Analysis Report) at Exhibit 96 showed that what was received by the Chemical Analyzer’s office was a bottle of colorless liquid and, therefore, there is serious doubt whether the same solution was sent to C.A. He also submitted that, the chit on which the telephone number of the applicant was written and the original complaint which was the starting point of all these allegations was not produced in the court.
However, the prosecution, represented by M R Tidke, rebutted that the color of the liquid will not make any difference as C.A. report was produced under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
No further efforts were taken by the defense to challenge that C.A. report. He further submitted that the trap was successful and, therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Considering that, “The applicant was on bail during trial. The incident is old. The date of complaint is 19/01/2009. Even after his conviction he is granted bail by the Trial Court under Section 389 of the Cr PC.”, the single bench of Sarang V Kotwal at Bombay High Court granted bail to the accused on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
