TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The accused was working as Excise Inspector, Jogipet, Medak District and joined in Government service as L.D.C. on 27-12-1962 in the office of Excise Superintendent. Medak District. Later he was promoted as Excise Sub-Inspector on 2-11-1971 and as Excise Inspector on 9-7-1985. He worked as Excise Inspector at Jogipet, Medak District from 8-4-1987 to 15-7-1989. He held Additional charge of the post of Tekmal Excise Range. Thus, he is a "public servant" within the meaning of Section 2 (c)(i) of the Act. One Sri Goundla Joginath Goud, son of Yella Goud is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lainant. Further investigation disclosed that the accused after demand and part payment sent up a preliminary report on grave crime part-I showing that accused is not traceable and he showed official favour by not mentioning the name of the father of the earlier demand, the accused demanded and accepted the balance of Rs. 2,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration on 19-6- 1989 at about 3.40 p.m. from the complainant Joginath Goud at his residence at Jogipet. Medak District in the presence of G. Anjaiah Goud and the accused was caught red-handed by the ACB in the presence of the mediators at 3.50 p.m. on 19-6-1989. The fingers of both the hands of the accused yielded positive results when subjected to Sodium Carbonate test. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there was demand and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was paid on 13.6.1989 which has not been proved and with regard to the trap conducted by the prosecution while the accused was receiving Rs. 2,000/- from P.W.1 on 19.6.1989. Even if the trap is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution version cannot be upheld in view of the aforesaid decision of this court. 3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusions of the High Court are without any foundation and legal basis. 4. Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court contending that the decision of this Court in Hari Dev Sharma's case (supra) is clearly applicable. 5. On a bare reading....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge." 7. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in ....