SARATH S. Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first accused, in CC No.3/2019 of the Special Judge(SPE CBI), Thiruvananathapuram arising from RC18(A)/2015/CBI/ACB/KOCHI, for offences punishable under sections 11,12 and 13(2) read with section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120 B of IPC, has approached this court to quash the FIR and the final report thereon.

(2.) According to the prosecution, on the basis of a reliable information, crime was registered on 5/10/2015 against the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner herein, who was the Income-tax Officer and few other persons. It was alleged that the Chief Commissioner of Income tax and the petitioner herein had entered into a criminal conspiracy to collect illegal gratification from the high value income-tax assesses under their jurisdiction, on a threat that Income tax authorities had proposed to conduct search on various commercial establishments. The petitioner herein allegedly acting on behalf of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax conveyed this to the Chartered Accountant of M/s.Ramachandran Textiles and offered to settle on payment of bribe of Rs. 15 Lakhs. In the negotiation that followed, the amount was reduced to Rs. 10 Lakhs. Accordingly, illegal gratification was handed over by the managing partner of M/s. Ramachandran Textiles to the Chartered Accountant who in turn handed over the sum of Rs.10 Lakhs in a bag to the petitioner herein. He entrusted that amount to one Kumar. On getting information, search was conducted in the house of Kumar and a sum of Rs. 11 Lakhs was recovered. The said Kumar committed suicide thereafter. After completion of investigation, final report was laid against few persons arraying the petitioner herein as the first accused. The Chartered Accountant was arrayed as the second accused and the Managing Partner of M/s.Ramachandran Textile was arrayed as the third accused.

(3.) The crux of the prosecution allegation was that, the amount so collected by the petitioner from the chartered accountant allegedly on behalf of the third accused was taken in a car driven by a witness and handed over to Kumar. The Crl.M.C. is laid on a premise that the the prosecution has now set up a totally different case from that was originally alleged and has omitted to charge sheet the Chief Commissioner of Income tax and his wife, who were originally arrayed as the first and the third accused. It was contended that the case now set up is inherently improbable and even as per the prosecution case no offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, much less any offence under IPC was made out. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case set up by the prosecution was highly unbelievable from the facts disclosed. It was also contended that there was absolutely no evidence to connect the petitioner with the amount allegedly recovered from Kumar. It was further contended that the prosecution has an inconsistent case and though it was alleged that Rs.10 Lakhs was handed over by the petitioner as illegal gratification, Rs.11 Lakhs was recovered from Kumar . It was also contended that the establishment of the third accused did not fall within the jurisdiction of the petitioner herein and he was not competent to initiate assessment proceedings or any other proceedings against the third accused, under the Income Tax Act. It was contended that, even according to the prosecution money was received by the petitioner on behalf of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and consequently, offence alleged under section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not applicable to him. It was further contended that, on the basis of the available materials, no conviction was possible and no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner.