Tax Assistant acquitted of bribery charges due to unreliable evidence and procedural defects. Money received deemed loan repayment.

The appellant, a Tax Assistant, was acquitted of charges related to demand and acceptance of a bribe for processing an income tax refund. The court found the prosecution's evidence unreliable and failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The sanction order for prosecution was deemed invalid due to procedural defects. The appellant successfully argued that the money received was a loan repayment, not a bribe, supported by witness testimony. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the conviction was set aside, with discharge from liability and cancellation of bonds.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Demand and acceptance of bribe.
2. Validity of the sanction order for prosecution.
3. Defense plea of repayment of loan.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe:
The appellant, a Tax Assistant, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.8,000/- for processing an income tax refund. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of P.W.11, the complainant, who alleged that the appellant demanded the bribe on 09.03.2012 and accepted it on 12.03.2012. During the trial, P.W.11 was declared hostile, and his testimony became inconsistent and unreliable. The court noted that P.W.11 failed to identify the appellant in the dock and contradicted himself regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

2. Validity of the Sanction Order for Prosecution:
The sanction order (Ext.8) for prosecuting the appellant was issued by P.W.3, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. However, it was established that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, was the actual appointing and removal authority for the Tax Assistant. P.W.3 admitted that he had not filed any document to show he was the removal authority of the appellant, and the sanction order did not disclose the mode of receiving documents or the names of witnesses whose statements were perused. The court concluded that the sanction order was defective and mechanically prepared without any application of mind, making it invalid.

3. Defense Plea of Repayment of Loan:
The appellant's defense was that the money received was a part repayment of a loan from B.D. Gupta, not a bribe. P.W.5, the income tax assessee, confirmed that B.D. Gupta had taken a loan from the appellant and had not repaid it, leading to a misunderstanding. P.W.11 also stated that he handed over the money to the appellant as per B.D. Gupta's instruction. The court found this defense plausible and concluded that the appellant had established his plea by the preponderance of probability, successfully rebutting the presumption under section 20 of the 1988 Act.

Conclusion:
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The defense plea of loan repayment was established by the preponderance of probability. Additionally, the sanction order for prosecution was found to be defective. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the impugned judgment and order of conviction were set aside. The appellant was discharged from liability of his bail bond, and the personal and surety bonds were canceled.

---