TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1988') and had been awarded the sentence of one year on each count and a fine of Rs.2,500/- was imposed, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The complainant - Naresh Kumar Kapoor was contacted by the respondent - the Income Tax Inspector who threatened him with reopening the assessment order, particularly in respect of the house owned and possessed by his wife Smt. Neeru Kapoor bearing No. 456, Model Town, Jalandhar and for purchasing the car which had not been disclosed by the complainant in his income tax return. The complainant and the respondent-accused had been in touch wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve Magistrate and other members of the raiding party and the money was recovered. Hands of the respondent-accused were washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink. In view thereof, the criminal prosecution started. D. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the respondent-accused. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case and the defence also examined 9 witnesses. On conclusion of the trial, the respondent was convicted and sentenced as referred to hereinabove. E. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred the criminal appeal before the High Court which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 3.3.2009. Hence, this appeal. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Panda, learned senior counsel a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent in-person. 6. It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court for compelling reasons should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse, i.e. if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record; or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice; or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. (Vide: Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab AIR 1973 SC 498; T. Subramanian v. The State of T.N., AIR 2006 SC 836; State of Kerala & Anr. v. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450; and Mukut Bihari & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642). 8. The case is required t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he benefit of doubt to the respondent accused and acquitted him. 10. Undoubtedly, the reasoning given by the High Court does not deserve to be accepted for the reason that even if the complainant had a criminal background, he can still be forced by the officer of the Income Tax Department to pay illegal gratification for not reopening the assessment of a particular year. The subsequent cases against the respondent-accused for having disproportionate assets cannot be corelated with the incident of trap case. The incident in which the respondent had been arrested for taking illegal gratification has to be examined on its own merit. The courts below have not taken note of the statement made by Gurlebleen Singh (PW.2) who is an Executive Mag....