NARAYANLAL MANSARAM RAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for suspension of conviction recorded against the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act for the sake of brevity).

(2.) The applicant/accused, at the relevant time, was a public servant and was working as the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 21(3), Mumbai. He was accused of demanding illegal gratification amounting to Rs.4 Lacs on 24.03.2014 from M/s. Hallmark Engineers and then to reduce that amount to Rs.1 Lac and subsequently accepting an amount of Rs.1 Lac towards illegal gratification on 29.03.2014 from PW-1 Praveen Agrawal of M/s. Hallmark Engineers.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused at sufficient length of time. He took me through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and submitted that it is the case of prosecution that amount of illegal gratification was initially demanded from PW-4 Rajesh Lavekar, Senior Accountant working with M/s. Hallmark Engineers. By taking me through evidence of PW-4 Rajesh Lavekar, it was pointed out that in cross-examination, this witness has candidly accepted the fact that on 24.03.2014, there was no demand of money from the accused for passing favourable order. It is argued that evidence of PW-11 Praphulla Ghodeswar, Investigating Officer shows that he had not even called PW-4 Rajesh Lavekar for verification of demand allegedly made by the accused on 24.03.2014. The learned Counsel further argued that so far as demand made on 29.03.2014, there is no evidence to that effect by the prosecution. The learned Counsel argued that evidence in respect of this demand is coming from evidence of PW-1 Praveen Agrawal, complainant in the instant matter. However, his evidence is not corroborated by any other evidence. PW-3 Sunil Buga was a shadow panch and his evidence shows that the alleged demand was not made by the accused in his presence. With this, the learned Counsel took me through evidence of PW-3 Sunil Buga and PW-11 Prafulla Ghodeswar, Investigating Officer to show that their evidence is not corroborating evidence of PW-1 Praveen Agrawal regarding the events allegedly took place on 29.03.2014 leading to recovery of tainted currency notes from the vehicle in which the applicant/accused was sitting. It is argued that evidence of the prosecution regarding the place occupied by the applicant/accused in the car, so also the events which took place thereafter leading to acceptance of the tainted currency notes by Aarti the applicant/accused is totally contradictory.