STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PARMESHWARAN SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against Order dated 6-1-2006 of the learned special Judge, Panaji.

(2.) THE applicant had prosecuted both the accused with an allegation that they had conspired together and had offered a bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Shri Yadav, Police Inspector, CBI, ACB, goa to hush up an inquiry which he was conducting at the relevant time against respondent/ A-1 accused were prosecuted under Section 120-B, I. P. C. and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act, for short ).

(3.) AT the relevant time, the respondent/ a-1 was working as Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and was expecting a promotion and he had feared that the said inquiry might come in the way of his promotion. Respondent/a-2 was the Inspector of Central Excise through whom the said bribe was allegedly offered. As far as prima facie facts go, the same have been held as proved by the learned Special Judge. However, the respondents/accused came to be discharged on the ground that the applicant/ complainant had prosecuted the respondent/accused without sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act,