Commercial Tax Office is hub of corruption: Karnataka High Court upholds conviction of Tax Officer

The Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently confirmed the conviction of a Commercial Tax Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹5 lakh [Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka]..Single-judge Justice V Srishananda upheld the conviction of handed down by the trial court, noting that the prosecution had established that the accused demanded illegal gratification, and that the tainted money had been recovered from his custody. The Bench also observed that the Commercial Tax Office is considered to be one of the hubs of corruption, and poor and gullible drivers fall prey to illegal demands everyday. Only when the greed is too high, do these cases reach higher ups, or the Lokayuktha. Very few cases result in filing, and even fewer are brought to their logical conclusion as they do not get the required support from the complainant or other prosecution witnesses. .The Court also termed the statistics published by the National Crime Bureau in respect of cases filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act as "disappointing"."Corruption is a distinct type of offence. It is like a cancer to the society. It eats the social and economical health every second resulting in unimaginable consequences.... it is often said that the world is not suffering from 'violence of many' but is suffering from 'silence of many'. Therefore when a true complainant has taken recourse to the legal battle, his testimony cannot be disbelieved on flimsy reasons," the Court observed. .In the instant case, the complainant who was working for a private company had purchased equipment for a factory, for which he had paid the required tax. While he was transporting the equipment in a lorry, officers at the check post intercepted him and demanded illegal gratification. He tried to have the matter settled for a sum of ₹1,000- ₹2,000, but they demanded a higher sum. He was initially asked to pay ₹15 lakh, which was later negotiated to ₹5 lakhs. .Not wishing to pay a bribe of ₹5 lakh, he lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha police, who arranged for a trap with the help of two independent witnesses and tainted currency notes. For forensic evidence, currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder, a chemical compound which would transfer to the hands of the person who touches the notes. When tested, the chemical changes colour and can establish that the suspect handled the bribe money. .On the day of the trap, the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused, and then gave a signal to the raid party, who tested the hands of the accused and the notes to establish that he had collected the money. Thereafter, a detailed investigation was launched, chargesheet filed, and the accused was found guilty in the trial. The accused-appellant approached the High Court arguing that the tainted money was a penalty which the complainant was required to pay, that other persons who had been named in the FIR had been dropped from the charge-sheet, and that the prosecution had not established the guilt of the accused.While examining the case, the Court noted that it is a well settled principle of law that in order to establish an offence under Sections 7 (Public servant taking gratification) and 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) read with 13(2) (punishment for criminal misconduct) of the PC Act, the prosecution has to establish: - Demand and acceptance of bribe money; - Handling of tainted money by the accused on the day of the trap;- Work of the complainant must be pending as on the date of the trap with the accused. .The Court noted that appreciating the testimony of the 'shadow witness' is peculiar in nature as his testimony is always intended to inculpate the accused. However, his testimony cannot be doubted only on that ground, the Court said. In the instant case, the shadow witness was a government employee who did not have any previous enmity or animosity against the accused, and acted as per the directions of the raid party, hence his testimony cannot be brushed aside on the ground of being an interested party. .Thus, since the prosecution had successfully established all the ingredients of the offence, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant. .Advocate Anil Kumar Navadagi appeared for the appellant-accused, and Advocate Subhash Mallapur appeared as the Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta .[Read Judgment]