N.N. DIKSHIT Vs. SUPERINTENDENT SBI, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -V, Ernakulam during 2000 -2002. On the allegation that he received an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - as illegal gratification from one Johny on 31.7.2002 at about 4 p.m., as a reward for passing favourable orders in the appeal brought by the said Johny against the assessment order passed and penalty imposed, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Thrissur, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Special Judge (SPE/CBI) -I, Ernakulam in C.C. 17/2003. The said said Johny is a businessman having some share trading business and other business activities and he has a company by -name 'Johny & Company', started in 1988. On the ground of failure on his part to submit income tax returns in time, the Income Tax Authorities conducted a raid at his office and his residence on 2.2.1994 and seized some documents. Proceeding under the Income Tax Act was initiated against him and in the said proceeding, the Income Tax Commissioner (Investigation), Thrissur passed orders directing him to pay the amount of tax due and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 22703/ - under Sec. 271B of the Income Tax Act (for short "I.T. Act"). He remitted the amount of tax and paid the amount of penalty, and preferred an appeal against the order before the Income Tax Commissioner. The said appeal came up for hearing before the appellant herein.

(2.) On getting notice dated 11.6.2002, the complainant Johny appeared before the accused on 27.6.2002, and submitted his hearing notes. Hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 1.7.2002. On the said day, a Chartered Accountant appeared before the accused on behalf of the complainant Johny on authorisation, and made arguments. Later, Johny received a notice from the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax in a proceeding under Sec. 271A of the I.T. Act. The complainant was earlier told that on the given allegations only a proceeding under Sec. 271A of the I.T. Act is possible, and that the proceedings brought under Sec. 271B of the I.T. Act could be closed. On 22.7.2002, the complaint appeared before the Income Tax Commissioner. It is alleged that on the said day, the complainant was told by the accused that some amount of penalty from Rs. 2000/ - to Rs. 1,00,000/ - could be imposed on him under Sec. 271A of the I.T. Act, though the proceeding under Sec. 271B can be closed, and the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 29.7.2002. The grievance of the complainant is that, when he appeared before the Income Tax Commissioner on 29.7.2002 to make submissions on his appeal, the accused demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - as illegal gratification for passing favourable orders on his appeal under Sec. 271B of the I.T. Act, and for imposing only a nominal penalty under Sec. 271A of the I.T. Act. It is alleged that the complainant was asked by the Income Tax Commissioner to come on the next day with the amount and he was assured that on payment of Rs. 10,000/ - favourable orders would be passed on 31.7.2002. As the complainant Johny was not inclined to make payment of bribe, he approached the C.B.I. and made a complaint. On his complaint, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, CBI, Kochi directed registration of a crime and authorised the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. to arrange a trap. Accordingly, a crime was registered on the complaint of Johny, and the Inspector of C.B.I. arranged a trap. He arranged two officials as trap witnesses, demonstrated phenolphthalein test to the complainant and the witnesses and proceeded to trap the accused. The amount of Rs. 10,000/ - brought by the complainant was received as per mahazar, it was treated with phenolphthalein, and the complainant was instructed to approach the accused at his office in the afternoon and make payment on demand. Accordingly, the complainant and the trap team proceeded to the office of the accused. The C.B.I. Officers and the trap witnesses remained outside at different places, and the complainant approached the accused at his office. After payment of the illegal gratification on demand, at the office of the accused, the complainant came out and gave the pre -arranged signal. On getting signal, the C.B.I. team entered the office of the accused, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency accepted by him as illegal gratification, and arrested the accused on the spot. After due investigation, and obtaining necessary sanction, the C.B.I. filed final report against the accused before the trial court.

(3.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Ss. 7 and 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the P.C. Act") and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in the trial court and proved Exts. P1 to P34 documents. When examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and submitted that he had not in fact demanded or accepted any illegal gratification from the complainant, and that he was viciously and illegally trapped only because he was not inclined to pass orders in favour of the complainant as requested by him. His further explanation is that while he was searching for some decisions pointed out by the complainant during arguments, the complainant who was present at his office stealthily and without his knowledge, put the tainted money in his table drawer with the object of trapping him, and the said amount was seized by the C.B.I. He further submitted that all through out his career, he has been a very honest and sincere officer without any blemish or stigma, and that he had no necessity of accepting anything illegally from anybody. In defence, the accused examined DW 1 and marked Exts. D1 to D4 documents.