The main legal point established in the judgment is that a public servant's acceptance of valuable things without consideration, even after the business is transacted, constitutes an offense under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Judgment

1. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 27 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-10-2010 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Shillong in Special Case (CBI) No. 1/2002 whereby accused/appellant, Smti. L.R. Mithran is convicted under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) in default of payment of which she is further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2(two) months.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that accused/appellant, Smti. L.R. Mithran was posted as Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong in the year 1996-1997. Office of the Directorate General Anti-Evasion, Kolkata detected a case of excise evasion against assessee, namely, M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd., 119, Park Street, Kolkata of which co-accused Shri. S.P. Goenka (since died) was the Chairman. In February 1996, said assessee was served with a show cause notice alleging that it has evaded central excise duty amounting to Rs. 35,79,07,804/- (Rupees thirty five crores, seventy nine lakhs, seven thousand, eight hundred and four). Smti. L.R. Mithran (accused/appellant) who was the then Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong had to adjudicate the matter. She heard the matter in September, 1996 and finally adjudicated in December, 1996 vide her adjudication order dated 5-12-1996. Accused/appellant sliced down the central excise duty payable by the aforesaid assessee M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd. from Rs. 35,79,07,804/- (Rupees thirty five crores, seventy nine lakhs, seven thousand, eight hundred and four) to Rs. 9,14,40,448/- (Rupees nine crores, fourteen lakhs, forty thousand, four hundred and forty eight) in her order dated 5-12-1996.

4. It is alleged that while the aforesaid adjudication was pending before the accused/appellant, Smti. L.R. Mithran, Commissioner of Excise, Shillong, floated Zami Memorial Charitable Trust, a Society, in the name of her mother for which a Tata Mobile vehicle bearing registration No. ML 05-D-2648 was donated by co-accused, Shri. Shanti Prakash Goenka (since died), Chairman of M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd. Not only this, Rs. 5,00,000/- through demand draft No. 483425, dated 23-12-1996 was also got donated by above mentioned assessee through one M/s. Warren Tea Ltd., Kolkata of which Shri. Vijay Kumar Goenka (son of co-accused, Shri. SP Goenka) was Managing Director. Apart from this, accused/appellant's son, Shri. AR Mithran was also got employed in a coal business with the help of co-accused, Shri. SP Goenka.

5. A First Information Report was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI) on 7-1-1999 as crime No. RC. 2(A) 1999-SHG relating to offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused, Smti. L.R. Mithran, the then Commissioner Central Excise, Shillong which was investigated by PW 30, Shri. Raghupati Bose, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against both the accused, Smti. L.R. Mithran and co-accused, Shri Shanti Prakash Goenka for their trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 31-12-2001 alongwith sanction order dated 20-12-2001 obtained against accused/appellant, Smti. L.R. Mithran.

6. After giving necessary copies and hearing the parties, Special Judge, CBI, Shillong framed charge of offence punishable under Section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against accused, Smti. L.R. Mithran on 20-8-2006 who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Separate charge appears to have been framed against co-accused Shri SP Goenka who also pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (It appears that both the accused challe