MANOJ MISRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused against the order of his conviction and sentence dated 3/4/5/6/9-11-1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 25 of 1986.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that, the appellant-accused was working as Assistant Director (Investigation) in Income-tax Department, Bombay. It is alleged that on 24-10-1983 the appellant-accused demanded Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty lacs) from the complainant Shri Sadruddin H. Daya, the Managing Partner of M/s. Dawood Shoes, as gratification other than legal remuneration under the pretext that the matter of evasion of huge Income-tax will be settled. It is alleged that the Income-tax department had carried out various raids on the business premises of M/s. Dawood Shoes and M/s. Metro Dawood Shoes Pvt. Ltd. It is also revealed that sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore) was due as Income-tax arrears from the aforesaid companies. It is alleged that the complainant being a very big businessman and influential person capable of getting his work done through any higher authority. It is further alleged that on 27-10-1983, the complainant alongwith the C. B. I. Officers and the panch witness went to the residence of the appellant at Flat No. 27, 6th Floor, B Building, Income-tax Colony, Peddar Road. Bombay with bundles of currency notes in all Rs. 2,50,000/- and alleged to have handed over the same to the appellant-accused. It also reveals that the bundles of currency notes were found from the down stairs and not from the possession of the appellant-accused. The raiding party went to the flat of the appellant-accused and drew a panchanama of the recovery of the bundles of currency notes in all of Rs. 2,50,000/ -. Phenolphthalein powder was found on the palm of the right hand of the appellant-accused. The raiding party thereafter started investigation. After completion of the investigation and obtaining sanction under Section 6 of the Act, a complaint was filed against the appellant-accused before the Special Court, Greater Bombay.

(3.) AFTER framing the necessary charges and recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the panch witness, the learned Special Judge held the appellant-accused guilty for offences punishable under Section 161 I. P. C. and under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly, the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 3 years for offence punishable under S. 161. I. P. C. and also sentenced to suffer R. I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for 9 months for offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The substantive sentence was ordered to run concurrently. Hence this appeal by the appellant-accused against the impugned order dated 9-11-92.