The High Court after analyzing the evidence on record found that in the explanation given by the appellant Exhibit P 9 immediately after the trap, numberhing was suggested that the amount in question was received towards arrears of taxes.
It was observed that the amount of Rs.1,000/ was number given towards the bribe but was paid towards the arrears of tax and that, the machinery having been released in favour of the companyplainant numberwork was in fact pending.
In the Appeal preferred by the State it was submitted that 50 of the arrears on tax would companye to about Rs.
It was further submitted that the facts on record would show that the companyplainant PW1 and shadow witness Umesh PW3 had deposed companysistently about the appellant demanding Rs.
After a signal was given, Lokayukta Police came and caught hold of the appellant as well as the driver A 2 from whose person the amount of Rs.1,000/ was recovered.
The Special Judge acquitted the appellant and the driver A 2 mainly on two grounds.
The companyplainant then approached Lokayukta Police on 09.07.1993 and lodged his companyplaint Ext.
As directed by the appellant, the companyplainant gave the amount to the driver A 2 who kept the amount with himself.
P 2, the charge sheet was submitted.
1,000/ as bribe and that the amount was paid as per his directions to accused No.2.
On 09.07.1993 the appellant along with his driver A 2 and peon came to the office of the companyplainant and demanded the amount of Rs.1,000/ .
On companypletion of investigation and grant of sanction vide Ext.
The acquittal of accused No.
In this appeal after grant of special leave to appeal, the appellant was directed to be released on bail.
After taking requisite steps a trap was laid.
On the other hand the explanation offered was that the amount was forcibly thrust by the companyplainant.
1,000/ only towards arrears of tax.
15,000/ and it was unimaginable that the companyplainant would pay Rs.
2 was affirmed.
