An Income Tax officer in Maharashtra has been acquitted of bribery charges after a CBI court found insufficient evidence of an illegal demand, raising questions about the prosecution's case.
Key Points
- An Income Tax officer was acquitted in a bribery case due to lack of evidence of an illegal demand.
- The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the initial demand for a bribe.
- Audio transcripts suggested the complainant proactively offered money, not that the officer extorted it.
- The court cited an invalid prosecution sanction and doubts about sample tampering in the case.
- Contradictory witness statements further weakened the prosecution's case against the Income Tax officer.
A special CBI Court in Maharashtra's Thane district acquitted an Income-Tax officer accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 2.75 lakh from a businessman, ruling that the mere recovery of money cannot constitute an offence without proof of an illegal demand.
Key Evidence and Court's Reasoning
Special Judge D S Deshmukh on Friday acquitted Income-Tax officer Anil Ratnakar Mallel (44) of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in a 2006 case.
The case against co-accused Additional Commissioner Pankaj Garg was abated following his death in 2024.
According to the prosecution, the CBI's anti-corruption branch laid a trap on December 13, 2006, following a complaint by Jaisukhlal Waghani of J.P. Electronics, who alleged officials demanded money to clear a scrutiny file.
Prosecution's Failure to Establish Demand
The court noted that when the prosecution failed to establish the initial demand, the entire evidence obtained by laying a trap becomes suspect.
While audio transcripts revealed that the complainant proactively offered money rather than Mallel extorting it, witnesses also gave contradictory statements.
"The evidence of recovery of tainted amount from Mallel when evidence of the previous demand is lacking, or is not satisfactory, would be totally insufficient to hold the accused guilty for having committed an offence. In this case also evidence of illegal demand is lacking," the judge ruled.
Doubts Regarding Evidence and Procedures
Mallel worked in an open hall where the complainant sat next to his desk drawer, the court pointed out, noting the cash could have been planted while his back was turned.
It also cited an invalid prosecution sanction, a 17-day delay in registering the first information report (FIR), and sample tampering doubts, while acquitting the accused of all charges.
