SC Restores Bribery Conviction of Income Tax Inspector; Senior Officer Acquittal Upheld:

SC restores inspector conviction for bribery, holds demand proved despite failure of conspiracy charge
Conviction upheld on demand and acceptance; conspiracy failure immaterial

SC Restores Bribery Conviction of Income Tax Inspector; Senior Officer Acquittal Upheld
The case arose from a CBI trap laid on a complaint by a taxpayer (PW1), who alleged that an Income Tax Inspector (A2) demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs on behalf of the Assessing Officer (A1) for clearing an assessment matter. The complainant approached the CBI, leading to a trap where Rs. 2 lakhs in marked currency was handed over to A2 and recovered from his possession.
The Trial Court convicted both A1 and A2 under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with separate conviction under Section 7. However, the High Court acquitted both accused, holding that neither conspiracy nor demand of bribe was proved. Aggrieved, the CBI approached the Supreme Court.
Main Issue: Whether conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be sustained against one accused when conspiracy fails and whether demand and acceptance of bribe were duly proved.
SC's Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and restored the conviction of A2 (Income Tax Inspector) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while upholding the acquittal of A1. The Court held that although conspiracy was not established, the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe against A2 stood independently proved through the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the trap laying officer and independent witnesses. Recovery of tainted money, positive chemical test, and conduct of the accused further strengthened the prosecution case.
It was clarified that failure to prove conspiracy does not invalidate a separate charge of demand and acceptance where evidence exists against an individual accused. However, in absence of any direct evidence of demand by A1, his acquittal was justified. Therefore, the circumstances and age of A2, the Court reduced the sentence from four years to one year rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2214My Recent Articles
- ITAT Condones Delay, Allows BSNL VRS Tax Exemption Under Section 10(10B)Premium
- ITAT Deletes Rs 30 Lakh Penalty Over Defective Section 274 NoticePremium
- ITAT Remands Rs 7 Lakh Addition for Fresh Verification of Loan SourcePremium
- ITAT Deletes Addition, Accepts Agricultural Income as Source of Land InvestmentPremium
- ITAT Condones 433-Day Delay, Restores Section 54F and Capital Gains IssuesPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








