RAJEEV RANJAN Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Rajeev Ranjan faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Court No. IV, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 16 of 2012 for offences punishable under sec. 7 and sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter "1988 Act") on the accusation that on 9/3/2012 he being a public servant functioning as Tax Assistant, Ward No.4, Income Tax Office, Ayakar Bhawan, Rourkela demanded Rs.8,000.00 (rupees eight thousand only) from the complainant Manoranjan Mishra (P.W.11) in the office of Income Tax, Udit Nagar, Rourkela for processing the refund claim of the income tax assessee Smt. Sudaramani Singh (P.W.5) for the year 2010-11 (Assessment Year 2011-12) and accepted the said amount of Rs.8,000.00 on 12/3/2012 as gratification other than legal remuneration for the above purpose.

(2.) P.W.11 lodged the written report before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar through D.S.P., C.B.I., Rourkela on 10/3/2012 stating therein that he submitted the I.T. return for the year 2011-12 of P.W.5 Smt. Sundarmani Singh, who was closely known to him at Income Tax Office, Ward No.4, Rourkela and a sum of Rs.17,862.00 was claimed in that return as refund claim. On 9/3/2012 at about 3.00 p.m., he met the appellant in his office in Ward No.4 and asked about the refund claim. The appellant told him that on payment of Rs.8,000.00 (rupees eight thousand) to him, he would process the file and send it to the Income Tax Officer. When P.W.11 asked the appellant as to why he would give so much of money, the appellant told him that unless such amount is paid, refund would not be given. The appellant then asked P.W.11 to give Rs.8,000.00 (rupees eight thousand) to him on 12/3/2012 in the morning hours. P.W.11 stated in his report to take suitable action against the appellant for making such illegal demand.

(3.) The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial and in his statement recorded under sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., he stated that prior to the alleged occurrence, one Bibek Dasgupta (hereafter "B.D. Gupta") had taken Rs.10,000.00 (rupees ten thousand) as loan from him and as the said loan amount was not repaid to him, there was misunderstanding and ill-feeling between him and B.D. Gupta. At the instance of B.D. Gupta, P.W.5, the assessee of ward No.1, resident of Chhend, filed IT return personally showing her address as Koel Nagar, C/o. B.D. Gupta. P.W.11 was a land broker and he was set up by B.D. Gupta to file a false F.I.R. against him. Further, it is pleaded that P.W.11 called him on 12/3/2012 over phone to take back a part of the loan refund amount stating that the same had been sent by B.D. Gupta and accordingly, he came out of the office and P.W.11 handover the tainted money stating that the same had been sent by B.D. Gupta towards part repayment of the loan amount. It is further pleaded that neither the appellant had ever demanded any amount to process the file of P.W.5 nor had accepted the amount knowing it as illegal gratification and no work of the assessee (P.W.5) was pending with him at that time as he had already handed over the income tax return file of P.W.5 to the I.T.O. and that the accusation labelled against him are false and fabricated.