G.SIVABALAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the convictions and sentences dated 26th August, 2009 passed in Calendar Case No.6 of 2005 by the Special Court for CBI Cases/IX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

(2.) The contraction of the case of the prosecution is that during the relevant period, the accused viz., G.Sivabalan has served as Superintendent of Central Excise, Service Tax Cell, Chennai, Commissionerate. The defacto complainant viz., Vasudevan and his wife Smt.Seethalakshmi are the Directors of the company known as M/s.Jayadasa Engineering and Exports Pvt.Ltd., The said company has calculated/self assessed service tax and paid Rs.24,445/- for the period from October 2003 to March 2004. One Gunasekaran, an employee of the said company has met the accused in his office. The accused has directed him to produce all bills and receipts relating to service tax paid within two or three days from 11.05.2004. The said company has prepared details and personally handed over the same to the accused. The accused has insisted the defacto complainant to meet him personally. On 13.08.2004, the accused has contacted the defacto complainant over phone and thereby directed to meet him in his office and accordingly, the defacto complainant has met the accused on the same day. The accused has informed him that the service tax paid by the defacto complainant is erroneous. On 19.08.2004, the accused has again contacted the defacto complainant over phone and demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of bribe to clear service tax assessment. On 23.08.2004, the defacto complainant has preferred a complaint and in pursuance of the same, the Investigating Officer has made an arrangement to conduct trap and accordingly, on the same day the defacto complainant and decoy witness have met the accused in his office and handed over a white cover which contained tainted money to him and subsequently the accused has been caught red-handed and thereafter, all necessary tests have been conducted in the presence of the accused and tainted money and other Material Objects have been recovered. The Investigating Officer has examined connected witnesses and after completing investigation has laid a final report on the file of the trial Court and the same has been taken on file in Calendar Case No.6 of 2005.

(3.) The trial Court after hearing both sides and upon perusing relevant records has framed a charge against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same has been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried.