Establishment of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is crucial for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to a rebuttable presumption of guilt regarding the motive behind the bribe.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 22-12-2025

Present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-1, Patna in Special Case No. 37 of 2018, arising out of CBI/ACB/Patna P.S. Case bearing F.I.R. No. RC0232011A0006, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 , 13(2) read with Section- 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act for brevity). Appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- for the offence under Section-7 of the P.C. Act and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- for the offence under Section-13(2) read with Section-13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. As per prosecution-case, on 16.03.2011 office of Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Patna received a written complaint from the complainant Shri Arun Kumar Shrivastav/P.W.5. In the complaint, it is stated that he was working as a Field Worker in Sahara India at Branch Office, Bhabua, Kaimur. It was alleged that for financial year 2008- 2009, an amount of Rs. 5826 had been deducted as tax out of complaint’s commission. Complainant’s total income for the financial year 2008-2009 was Rs. 50,905/-. On 21.10.2009, the complainant filed Form No. ITR-4 before the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sasaram seeking refund of Rs. 5,826 vide receipt No. 0000007776. It is alleged that complainant/P.W.5 several time visited Income Tax Office for refund when the appellant Ram Narayan Singh, posted as Tax Assistant, demanded an amount of Rs. 600/- at the rate of 10% for processing the refund. It is further alleged that on 17.03.2011 complainant/P.W.5 was asked to come with money to which the complainant was not agreeable as complainant does not believe in pursuing his work after bribing the government official.

3. Aggrieved with the demand, the complainant/P.W.5 gave written statement regarding aforesaid allegation to Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Patna. Subsequently, allegation made in the complaint was verified by one of the officers and after verification and being satisfied with the truthfulness of allegation, formal F.I.R. was lodged vide F.I.R. No. RC0232011A0006 dated 16.03.2011under Section-7 of P.C. Act and investigation was initiated and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Section 7 , 13(2) read with Section-13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 on 29.06.2011 and Court has also taken cognizance against the appellant on 05.08.2011 under the said Sections. Charge has been framed under , 13(2) read with Section-13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, the same was read over in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. To substantiate the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to P.W. 12 and marked Exhibits 1 to 15, along with their sub- exhibits, besides producing Material Exhibits, Exts.-I to XI. The documentary and material evidence include the sanction for prosecution (Ext.1), complaint (Ext.-7), verification report Ext.- 15), formal FIR (Ext.-15), preliminary memorandum (E