No Procedural Irregularity In Grant Of Sanction: Patna High Court Directs Income Tax Assistant To Surrender In Corruption Case

The Patna High Court has directed an Income Tax Assistant (ITA) to surrender before the concerned Court in a corruption case.

A Criminal Appeal was filed by the said accused, challenging the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Special Judge.

A Single Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey observed, “I do not find any procedural irregularity in grant of sanction. It was also deposed by the sanctioning authority (P.W. 1) that after going through all these documents which were made available to him by C.B.I. and after satisfying himself that there was a prima facie case to initiate the prosecution against the appellant and after having arrived at such satisfaction, he accorded sanction (Ext.-1).”

The Bench added that the prosecution initiated the proceedings against the accused, after obtaining the sanction order from the competent authority.

Advocate Sumit Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused, while APP Mukeshwar Dayal appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

As per the prosecution case, in 2011, a complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police, CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) wherein it was stated that the Complainant 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. 5,826/- was deducted as tax out of Complainant’s commission. Complainant’s total income for the financial year 2008-2009 was Rs. 50,905/-. In 2009, he had filed a Form No. ITR-4 before the Income Tax Officer (ITO), seeking a refund of Rs. 5,826/-. It was alleged that the Complainant several times visited Income Tax Office for refund when the Appellant-accused posted as Tax Assistant, demanded an amount of Rs. 600/- at the rate of 10% for processing the refund.

Thereafter, the Complainant was allegedly asked to come with money to which he was not agreeable as he did not believe in pursuing his work after bribing the government official. Aggrieved with the demand, the Complainant gave a written statement regarding such allegations and subsequently, an FIR was lodged. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 2,500/-. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “It is settled law that the two basic facts, i.e. demand and acceptance of gratification have been proved, the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act. However, such presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the same.”

The Court said that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, in respect of the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount from the Complainant and recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the Appellant.

“In such circumstances, the appellant has to rebut the presumption by disproving the case of prosecution either in cross-examination of witnesses of prosecution side or by adducing material evidence that the receipt of Rs. 600/- was not a bribe amount, but a legal fee. However, the appellant failed to do so. On the contrary, I find that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt”, it remarked.

The Court further observed that there is nothing on record to show that Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case on account of previous enmity.

“The ground of defence, as contended, was not supported by any cogent documentary evidence or through oral evidence. … On all counts, from the aforesaid analysis, I find that contention of learned counsel for the C.B.I. is quite convincing that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution has proved all core points of prosecution story”, it also noted.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the concerned Court is justified and legal.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal, affirmed the Trial Court’s Judgment, cancelled the bail-bonds of the accused, and directed him to surrender before the concerned Court forthwith to serve out the remainder of sentence.

Cause Title- Ram Narayan Singh v. The State of Bihar (Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.468 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Judgment