2025 (8) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Investigation (CBI) i.e. against judgment and order dated 03-08-2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Nanded in Special (ACB) Case No. 15 of 2011, acquitting both accused (present respondents) from charge under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri Panale apprised this Court about background of the prosecution case in the trial Court that, present respondent no. 1 Ravindra Garkal was officiating as Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, whereas respondent no. 2 Madhukar Kadam was a Superintendent. He pointed out that for issuing Central Excise Registration Certificate for the company....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on merits in appeal and therefore, he urges for leave to file appeal. 3. Both learned counsel for accused nos.1 and 2 supported the judgment sought to be impugned. They pointed out that, prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand as well as acceptance. They pointed out that, required Central Excise Registration Certificate was already issued on 29-11-2010 and therefore, there was no question of putting up demand on 30-11-2010 for the work which was already done. They pointed out that, learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated evidence of PW1 Prabhakar that of PW3 J.Uttam Sitaram, shadow pancha, and has also elaborately dealt and analyzed answers given by these witnesses in cross-examination. That, they were apparently not c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... made a phone call to accused no. 1 that bribe of Rs. 10,000/- had been received and to inform suitable time to handover it. He further deposed that accused no. 1 asked him to come to his office at 04:00 p.m. Till such time, complainant was accompanied by shadow pancha and witness claims that they all three went to office of accused no. 1, however, only PW1 complainant entered office of accused no. 1 and at that time, PW3 shadow pancha was outside the office. PW3 shadow pancha is not corroborating PW1 as he is giving distinct time of being called by accused no. 1. In cross-examination, PW3 has admitted that when accused no. 2 entered the office of accused no. 1 for handing over bribe, accused no. 2 had asked PW3 shadow pancha to stay outsid....