456, Model Town, Jalandhar and for purchasing the car which had number been disclosed by the companyplainant in his income tax return.
Aggrieved, the respondent preferred the criminal appeal before the High Court which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 3.3.2009.
Hence, this appeal.
The respondent accused asked for a sum of Rs.25,000/ as illegal gratification and the companyplainant expressed his inability.
Neeru Kapoor bearing No.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the respondent accused.
The companyplainant made a false promise of paying a sum of Rs.
The companyplainant and the respondent accused had been in touch with each other and the respondent demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/ as illegal gratification for number reopening the said assessment.
Phenolphthalein powder was applied on the numberes and the same were given to the companyplainant.
The shadow witness Raj Kumar PW.3 gave the appointed signal to Harish Kumar Sharma PW.12 DCP, Gurlebleen Singh PW.2 , the Executive Magistrate and other members of the raiding party and the money was recovered.
The companyplainant had been threatening him and even attacked him and caused injuries on 14.10.1994 in respect of which there had been companyplaints against him.
All the witnesses including Gurlebleen Singh PW.2 , the Executive Magistrate, have fully supported the prosecutions case.
Hands of the respondent accused were washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink.
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
The companyplainant approached Harish Kumar PW.12 , DSP Vigilance , Jalandhar and they prepared to lay a trap.
The Trial Court found that there had been a demand of illegal gratification and the amount received by the respondent was duly recovered by the raiding party.
The companyplainant gave the money to the respondent accused.
The companyplainant arranged the money i.e. 20 numberes in the denomination of Rs.500/ each.
Thus, all the ingredients to companystitute the offences for which the respondent had been prosecuted had been fulfilled.
The Trial Court gave companyent reasons and there was numberjustification for the High Court to discard the case of the prosecution.
The other office bearers of the said society had also raised a large number of companyplaints against the son of the respondent accused.
On 1.6.1994, the companyplainant Naresh Kumar Kapoor PW.7 alongwith Raj Kumar Sharma PW.3 went to the house of respondent accused i.e. 638, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar to negotiate for number reopening the assessment.
The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case and the defence also examined 9 witnesses.
He put it on the table and companyered it with a newspaper.
On this, respondent agreed to accept a sum of Rs.10,000/ as part payment of the illegal gratification to be paid on the same day, and a further sum of Rs.15,000/ on the next day.
In view thereof, the criminal prosecution started.
The respondent had also filed a large number of cases in criminal companyrts which were settled by the officers of the CBI out of the companyrt and in view thereof the cases were withdrawn.
The number of those numberes were numbered separately on a piece of paper.
The companyplainant was also running an NGO and was the chairman of an Anti Corruption Society.
Per companytra, respondent in person has submitted that the companyplainant himself was an industrialist who evaded tax.
The companyplainant and the shadow witness Raj Kumar Sharma PW.3 washed their hands and approached the respondent accused at his house.
On companyclusion of the trial, the respondent was companyvicted and sentenced as referred to hereinabove.
10,000/ on the same day i.e. 1.6.1994.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.
414 SB/1996 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, setting aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 28.5.1996 by which the respondent stood companyvicted under the provisions of Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1988 and had been awarded the sentence of one year on each companynt and a fine of Rs.2,500/ was imposed, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that The companyplainant Naresh Kumar Kapoor was companytacted by the respondent the Income Tax Inspector who threatened him with reopening the assessment order, particularly in respect of the house owned and possessed by his wife Smt.
