Calcutta High Court Denies Relief to West Bengal Excise Officer in Bribery Case:

Calcutta High Court Denies Relief to West Bengal Excise Officer in Bribery Case The Calcutta High Court has refused to give relief to a West Bengal excise officer accused of accepting bribery for facilitating the opening of a liquor shop outside his jurisdiction. The court observed that the corrupt officials know how to get their work done even beyond their jurisdiction. The excise officer, Sandip Kumar Roy, was accused of asking for a bribe of Rs 1 lakh as part of a bigger Rs 16 lakh demand. In return, he allegedly promised to help the other person that he would help him get a liquor license. The officer has requested the court to quash the criminal case against him, but the court did not agree.

Also Read

Calcutta High Court Dismisses State Appeals on Input Tax Credit Dispute; Matter Remanded Back to Revenue

He was arrested on November 26, 2016, by the anti-corruption branch, followed by a written complaint that alleged that he had demanded Rs 1 lakh as a bribe for facilitating a bar-cum-restaurant license, which is beyond his territorial jurisdiction. After this, a case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Justice Apurba Sinha Ray said that corrupt officials pretend they have the ability to facilitate the opening of liquor shops even outside their jurisdiction. So, the officer's claim that he could not help with a license outside his jurisdiction was not convincing. The case is based on a trap operation by the Anti-Corruption Branch. During this operation, the petitioner's handwash samples were collected, and a forensic report confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. This showed that he has managed the tainted currency notes.

Also Read

ITC Dispute: Calcutta HC Upholds SCN, Cancels Adjudication Order for Breach of Natural Justice

The officer argued that the tainted money was found on the sofa and was not found in his possession. His advocate argued that the prosecution case was flawed, as there was no proof of demand or acceptance of a bribe. However, the court noted that the chemical test showed he touched the money. A witness also supported the claim that a bribe was demanded.