IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 OF 2012
DINESH KUMAR …. Appellant
Versus
STATE TH. INSPECTOR & ANR. …. Respondents
According to the prosecution complainant Jayaramu was the proprietor of Murugan Furniture and Wood works and because of arrears of sales tax in the sum of Rs.30,302/- the machinery in his factory was sealed. He had therefore filed writ petition in which the High Court had directed the authorities to consider his representation and that upon payment of 50 per cent of the amount in question, the attachment be lifted and the machinery be released in his favour. In this connection he approached the appellant who was then working as Commercial Tax Inspector (Recovery) and was told that for removal of seals, Rs.1,000/- would be required to be paid to the appellant by way of gratification. The complainant then approached Lokayukta Police on 09.07.1993 and lodged his complaint Ext.P-1. After taking requisite steps a trap was laid. On 09.07.1993 the appellant along with his driver (A-2) and peon came to the office of the complainant and demanded the amount of Rs.1,000/-. As directed by the appellant, the complainant gave the amount to the driver (A-2) who kept the amount with himself. After a signal was given, Lokayukta Police came and caught hold of the appellant as well as the driver (A-2) from whose person the amount of Rs.1,000/-was recovered. On completion of investigation and grant of sanction vide Ext.P-2, the charge sheet was submitted. The Special Judge acquitted the appellant and the driver (A-2) mainly on two grounds. It was observed that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was not given towards the bribe but was paid towards the arrears of tax and that, the machinery having been released in favour of the complainant no work was in fact pending. In the Appeal preferred by the State it was submitted that 50% of the arrears on tax would come to about Rs. 15,000/- and it was unimaginable that the complainant would pay Rs.1,000/- only towards arrears of tax. It was further submitted that the facts on record would show that the complainant PW1 and shadow witness Umesh PW3 had deposed consistently about the appellant demanding Rs. 1,000/- as bribe and that the amount was paid as per his directions to accused No.2….read more