Case Law Details
Mehboob Jaffer Ali Shaikh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Bombay High Court)
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2023 preferred by the Applicant against the Judgment and order dated 12/01/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Greater Bombay in Special Case No.116 of 2013. The applicant was the original accused No.2. He was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for six months. The co-accused Satyanarayana Vanam was convicted for commission of offences punishable Under sections 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard Shri. Girish Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri. Kuldeep Patil, learned counsel for the CBI/Respondent No.1 and Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the State/Respondent No.2.
3. The prosecution case is that the applicant was entrusted with the work of filing income tax return by the complainant i.e. PW-2 Abdul Mansuri. The co-accused i.e. accused No.1 was the Office Superintendent working with the Income Tax Department in Mumbai. The complainant i.e. PW-2 had sold his house in Kharghar. It is the prosecution case that the applicant told PW-2 that he was required to pay Rs.1,70,000/- by way of tax in that transaction. He further told PW-2 that he will have to pay Rs. 40000/- to the accused No.1. The complainant-PW-2 did not want to pay the bribe amount and, therefore, he lodged his complaint with the CBI. A trap was laid on 13/11/2013. The prosecution case is that the applicant was found having accepted the amount of Rs. 20000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, admittedly, the applicant was a Tax Consultant working for PW-2 and there is a strong possibility that the amount was received as professional fees and not as bribe. He further submitted that the complainant had placed that amount in the drawer of the applicant without his knowledge and thereafter had handshake with the applicant thereby transferring the antharacene powder on the hand of the applicant. He submitted that, in any case, the prosecution case is that the amount was accepted on behalf of the accused No. 1 whose appeal is separately admitted and he is already granted bail in connection with his appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that the sentence imposed on the applicant is short and the Appeal is not likely to be decided within that period. The applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused that liberty. Even after conviction the applicant was granted bail U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
