LAWS(CAL)-2006-3-48

SAT PAUL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On March 31, 2006
SAT PAUL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and also under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short P.C. Act), 1947 passed by the learned Judge, 24-Parganas (South), 1st Special Court, Alipore in Special Court Case No. 8 of 1987 thereby sentencing the accused appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 161 of IPCand rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for nine months for the offence under section 5(2) of the P.C. Act. 1947. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case was started on the basis of written complaint/FIR made by Prasanta Agarwal (P.W. 1) submitted before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, 13, Lindsay Street, Calcutta. It was alleged in the complaint by P.W. 1 that on 23.7.86 some officials of Central Excise under the leadership of the appellant Sat Paul, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, raided the office of M/s. Capital Electronics situated at P-161, V.I.P. Road, Scheme VIIM, Calcutta-54 and at that time they seized some documents and also detained some T.V. sets pending investigation. At the time of leaving office of M/s. Capital Electronics, the appellant asked the complainant party to meet him at his office at Bamboo Villa next day. Accordingly, the complainant (P.W. 1) accompanied by Anand Swarup Agarwal (P.W. 6), partner of the said firm, met the appellant at his office when the appellant asked them to pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- to him as bribe, otherwise he would not release the seized goods and would continue to harass them.

(3.) On 28.7.86 P.W. 1 met the appellant at his office and requested him to release the seized goods and after much persuasion the appellant agreed to pass order for release of the goods on condition of payment of Rs. 4000/- as illegal gratification. The appellant also asked the complainant to meet him at his oficce next day at about 10.30 a.m. with the bribe money. The complainant under compelling circumstances agreed to pay him the amount of bribe and thereafter the appellant issued an order dated 28.7.86 releasing the said goods unconditionally, which is totally contrary to the previous order issued by the appellant. The appellant had changed his earlier order after getting assurance from the appellant regarding bribe money of Rs. 4000/- but, the appellant informed the complainant that if he does not pay the sum of Rs. 4000/- as bribe the appellant would cause more harassment in various ways.