TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1000
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cused in his office. The accused has directed him to produce all bills and receipts relating to service tax paid within two or three days from 11.05.2004. The said company has prepared details and personally handed over the same to the accused. The accused has insisted the defacto complainant to meet him personally. On 13.08.2004, the accused has contacted the defacto complainant over phone and thereby directed to meet him in his office and accordingly, the defacto complainant has met the accused on the same day. The accused has informed him that the service tax paid by the defacto complainant is erroneous. On 19.08.2004, the accused has again contacted the defacto complainant over phone and demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of bribe to clear service tax assessment. On 23.08.2004, the defacto complainant has preferred a complaint and in pursuance of the same, the Investigating Officer has made an arrangement to conduct trap and accordingly, on the same day the defacto complainant and decoy witness have met the accused in his office and handed over a white cover which contained tainted money to him and subsequently the accused has been caught red-handed and thereafte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on 11.05.2004. The accused has insisted the defacto complainant to meet him personally. On 13.08.2004 the accused has contacted the defacto complainant over phone and informed that the service tax paid by the said company is erroneous. On 19.08.2004 the accused has again contacted the defacto complainant over phone and demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of bribe so as to clear the service tax and since the defacto complainant is not interested to give bribe, a complaint has been lodged to the Investigating Officer and subsequently pre-trap proceedings have been conducted and thereafter, the defacto complainant and a decoy witness have met the accused in his office. The accused has demanded bribe from the defacto complainant and after his demand, a white cover which contained tainted money has been handed over to him and after receipt of the same, the accused has kept it in his right pant pocket and thereafter after receipt of pre-arranged signal, the Inspector by name Moni has enquired the accused and also conducted search and the accused has taken out the said cover from right pocket of his pant and thereafter, necessary tests have been conducted. 8. The Commissioner of Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Police, ACB/CBI/Chennai), wherein this Court has held that a digital recorder has been played in the presence of witnesses and found that conversation is not audible. The wrapper containing seal and signatures of the witnesses used for keeping the digital recorded is Ex.P17. Further, it is observed that having submitted the same to the Court without playing it, the Investigating Officer should have submitted a request to the Court to sent the digital recorder to the Forensic Lab for recording the matters recorded therein. Further it is observed that there is no requisite evidence for the purpose of proving demand as well as acceptable of bribe by the accused from PW2." (b) In CDJ 2011 MHC 4937 (S.Kumar Vs. State, rep.by Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB) this Court has observed that on careful scrutinisation of testimonies of PW5 and PW6, it is significant to note here that the appellant/first accused has not even handled the currency notes. This fact has also been admitted by PW7 stating that the accused had not handled the money on that day. But, he had received the cover containing money on that day. It is also significant to note here that during the time of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat effect, a half yearly return has been filed on 13th May 2004. On 13th August, the accused has asked him to come to his office through his accountant by name Gunasekaran and accordingly he has gone to office of the accused for filing monthly return. At that time the accused has discussed about service tax and he explained that the tax already paid is erroneous. The accused has also directed to give split up bills separately for materials and labour. On 13th August 2004, the accused has called him again over phone and demanded a bribe amount of Rs. 25,000/- and also directed him to bring that amount on 23rd August 2004. Further the accused has told him that if the said amount is not paid, he would issue notice. Further he deposed in his evidence that he is not interested in paying bribe amount to the accused and due to that on 23.08.2004, he has gone to CBI office and given a complaint (Ex.P3). The Superintendent of Police directed him to meet the Inspector by name Moni and accordingly he met him and he directed to arrange money. Further he deposed that after arranging money, again he has come to CBI office at 01.00 pm. The Inspector Moni has arranged two independent witnes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Material Objects have been received and all items have been analysed under the supervision of Assistant Director and both phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate are deducted in items 1 to 3. Since the evidence given by PW6 is inconsonance with the case of the prosecution, in fact, the evidence of PW6 has really strengthened the case of the prosecution. 18. The first and foremost attack made on the side of the appellant/accused is that the witnesses namely PWs.2 to 4 have consistently stated in their evidence that during the course of pre-trap proceedings, the alleged tainted money of Rs. 25,000/- has been put in a white cover and the defacto complainant viz., PW2 has handed over the same to the accused and the said cover has also been subjected to necessary test. But for the reason best known to the prosecution, the same has not been marked as one of the material objects. 19. As rightly pointed out on the side of the prosecution, PWs.2 to 4 have clearly stated in their evidence that the tainted money of Rs. 25,000/- have been put in a white cover. The specific evidence given by PW2 is that after demand made by the accused, he handed over the same to him and he kept the sam....