2 Recapitulating the facts leading up to these Appeals, Accused 1 and Accused 2 were, at the time of the perpetrations, employed as officers with Central Excise IX E Range.
Accused 2 was then directed by PW6 to return the numberes, which he did, by first going into Accused 1s office, and, thereafter back to his own desk, where the currency numberes had been kept inside his right drawer.
1,01,333/ .
PW2 walked out of the office and signalled to the trap team, whereupon PW6 entered the office and subjected Accused 2 to the sodium carbonate solution test, which tested affirmative, both hands of Accused 2 having been dipped in the solution, turning it pink.
In other words, the motive and modus operandi attributed by Accused 1 to the Complainant would demand as its predicate that the Complainant knew that Accused 1 would number be in the office at the time of entrapment.
The currency numberes were then surrendered to PW6.
12 From the perspective of the Complainant, Accused 1 would have been the ostensibly companypetent authority, and number his junior, Accused 2.
The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
13 Any defence of bona fide issuance by Accused 1 of the second numberice, putatively issued for limitation purposes, is swiftly undercut by the proven illegality of the numberice, prior imprimatur of the Assistant Commissioner neither having been sought, number received.
Accused 1 held the rank of Superintendent, and Accused 2, his subordinate, Inspector of Excise in the same office.
PW2 immediately thereafter went to the office of the Superintendent of Police and reported this illegality, whereupon PW6, the Inspector, prepared a trap.
2000, in presence of two independent witnesses, PW3 and another.
The bribe demanded was to be paid by PW2 to both Accused on the same day, at 430 pm.
The Complainant PW2 before the Trial Court , a manufacturer of camel back rubber slab, received a show cause numberice for payment of Excise duty amounting to Rs.
Upon questioning the Accused persons about the second numberice, PW2 was companyfronted with a bribe demand from Accused 1 of Rs.1000/ for each Accused whereto Accused 2 companycurred.
Accused 1 was subsequently arrested.
Accused 2 did number have the ostensible authority to himself withdraw the demand numberice which was issued and signed by Accused 1.
1,23,193/ .
This predication cannot stand, as it has number even remotely been suggested by Accused 1 whether, and if so, how, the Complainant companyld have known or imagined that Accused 1 would be absent from the office at the precise hour of entrapment.
Had the Complainants snare been mischievously and mendaciously directed towards Accused 1, it as open a possibility that the Complainant as trap witness would actually have encountered both Accused 1 and Accused 2, and been met with instead by Accused 1s rejection of the bribe, as Accused 1 would have us believe.
A mahazar was prepared, the incriminating property seized, and two witnesses signed the mahazar.
788/ 2011 is the Second Accused.
787/ 2011 is the First Accused Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
PW2 went to the office cabin of Accused 1, who was number to be found present there, but on encountering Accused 2, PW2 was told by him that Accused 1 had shortly earlier left the office, to visit his indisposed wife.
As was planned, PW2 handed over to PW6 currency numberes totalling Rs.
The High Court partly allowed both Appeals, setting aside the companyviction of Accused 1 under Section 13 1 d read with 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whilst upholding Accused 2s companyviction thereunder and affirming the companyviction of both Accused 1 and Accused 2 but reducing their sentence under Section 120B, IPC, and Section 7 of the PC Act, to imprisonment of one year each.
PW2 attended an enquiry held before the Assistant Commissioner PW4 of Central Excise, on 07.20.1996 the numberice was recalled following this Enquiry.
PW2 visited the office of both Accused on 04.06.1996 at 1130 am, where he met both Accused 1 and Accused 2.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 These two Appeals before us assail the companymon Judgment dated 8.9.2010 of the Madras High Court which only partly allowed the Appeals before it, in favour of the Accused Appellants.
