TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Petitioner was Commissioner (Excise), Delhi who had purportedly conspired with his co-accused-Lallan [Superintendent (Central Excise), New Delhi] and one Hemant Gandhi in getting illegal raid conducted on 28th December, 2011 at the premises of co-accused Dalip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal to obtain bribe of Rs. 60 lac. On basis of source information, a trap was laid on 2nd January, 2012 at the parking of the office of Lallan, Superintendent (Central Excise), New Delhi where an amount of Rs. 3 lac had been kept by one Dalip Kumar, driver of aforesaid Superintendent (Central Excise) in a car (which was registered in the name of wife of Superintendent-La....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought to be prosecuted in this case. 5. Quashing of impugned order (Annexure-A) as well as the charges framed in pursuance thereto, is sought in this petition primarily on the ground that if two views are possible on the material relied upon by prosecution, it cannot give rise to grave suspicion justifying putting an accused on trial. To contend so, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner had relied upon decisions in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Anr. - AIR 2010 SC 663; Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narain Rao - 2012 Crl. L.J. 4610 (SC); Subramaniam Samy v. A. Raja - AIR 2012 SC 3336; CBI v. V.C. Shukla and Ors. - AIR 1998 SC 1406; State v. Navjot Sandhu - AIR 2005 SC 3820; State of Bihar v. Raj Kumar Mahto - 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on record to show that any pass was issued to Hemant Gandhi (A-3) on 27th December, 2011 to facilitate his entry into petitioner's office for the alleged meeting on that day during lunch hours. Thus, it was submitted that the factum of aforesaid meeting stands belied in the absence of entry pass. 8. Regarding the illegal raid, attention of this Court was drawn to the statement of Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, Additional Commissioner, Anti-Evasion Branch (PW-5) to assert that depending on the nature of information, verbal approvals are given to develop intelligence information and to avoid information getting leaked out and this is done in the interest of revenue. It was asserted that no permission or authorization was given to conduct the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in solely relying upon call No. 51 while taking no notice of call No. 48, which negates the prosecution case qua petitioner. Finally, it was submitted that no definite view can be formed about the complicity of petitioner in commission of the offences in question and so, quashing of impugned order qua petitioner is sought. 12. On behalf of respondent, reliance was placed upon decisions in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another - (2012) 9 SCC 460; Soma Chakravarty v. State through CBI - (2007) 5 SCC 403; Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation - (2010) 9 SCC 368; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another - (1979) 3 SCC 4; Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Another - 2012 (10) SCALE; Hardeo Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accept the bribe amount as it is clear that when A-3 briefed A-1 about the raid and stated the agreed bribe figure of 'Six Zero' in cryptic manner, then neither A-1 protested, nor demanded any explanation as to what was that figure. Rather he said "OK". So, accused No. 1 cannot claim that he cannot be charged under Section 7 of the PC Act." 14. The need for independent application of mind has been stressed upon by Apex Court in Sajjan Kumar (supra). In Prafulla Kumar (supra), relied upon by respondent, Apex Court has ruled that excepting the cases of grave suspicion, which the accused is unable to explain, Trial Court is empowered to discharge the accused. In Soma Chakravarty (supra), Apex Court has reiterated that suspicion alone c....