Must Read
K. Santhamma V. State of Telangana
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
K. Santhamma V. State of Telangana
Introduction
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the HC of Telangana which confirmed the findings of a Special Court that convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
PW- Prosecution Witness
PW 1- Complainant 1- Supervisor of the Society.
PW 2- Complainant 2- MD of the Society
PW 3- Madhusudan - Godown in charge of the Society.
PW 4- ACTO (Assistant Commercial Tax Officer)
Appellant- CTO (Commercial Tax Officer)
Facts of the Case
The appellant was working as a Commercial Tax Officer. It was alleged by PW 1, Sharma (working as a supervisor in Farmers' Service Co-operative Society) that the appellant was demanding a bribe of Rs 3000 to issue an assessment order. The supervisor of the said society and its MD made a written complaint to ACB. A trap was laid to catch the appellant red-handed by giving tainted currency notes. But it was alleged that the appellant instead of taking the tainted notes directly in her hand, she opened a diary and asked to put that currency in between the diary. Therefore when the trap party entered the office of the appellant, they found the same currency note in her diary. The Special court found that the demand for a bribe and its acceptance was proved and this finding was also affirmed by the HC. Therefore this appeal was raised.
Contentions of Appellant
- Demand not proved
- Recovery not proved
- In the Sodium Carbonate test, her finger did not turn red
- ACTO had a grudge against the appellant.
- Unless the demand and acceptance are established presumptions under S-20. PCA would not apply.
- The existence of a washroom in the chamber was accepted by D.S.P, ACB.
- Notice issued by the appellant informing the society that they are not liable to pay.
Respondent's Contentions
- No reason for PW 1 to make a false allegation
- Tainted notes were found in the diary.
- the appellant didn't issue a final assessment order, though notice may have been served.
- Under Article-136, no interference is called for.
Issue
Ratio Decidendi
- Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is sine-qua-non to establish the offence under S.7, PCA.
- The prosecution's case about the demand appears to be highly doubtful because the final assessment order was only a procedural formality.
- PW 1 is the only witness to the alleged demand and acceptance.
- Acc. to PW 4, the demand was not reiterated at the time of the trap, in fact, he himself told her that he brought the money.
- PW 2 had no personal Knowledge about the demand.
- Though the appellant asked PW 3 whether he had brought the demanded amount, PW 3 didn't state that the appellant demanded the amount for granting any favour to the said society.
- PW 4 admitted that the appellant had served a memo to him alleging that he was careless in performing his duties.
Decision:
- The demand for illegal gratification is not proved.
- Set aside earlier impugned judgements.
- Set aside the conviction.
- Acquitted the appellant.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment