Patna High Court Confirms Conviction Of Tax Assistant For Accepting ₹600 Bribe To Process Income Tax Refund

The single bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey noted that it is crystal clear that the place of occurrence is the Income Tax Office, Sasaram, where the complainant has alleged that demand was being made and on the point of demand, the occurrence is corroborated by P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 and the recovery was also admitted by other witnesses and all the prosecution-witnesses have supported and corroborated the core points of prosecution-story.

The present case arose from a corruption case registered by the CBI in 2011 while The appellant was serving as a Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Office at Sasaram.

The prosecution case originated from a complaint lodged by Arun Kumar Srivastava, a field worker, who had sought a refund of ₹5,826 for the assessment year 2009-10 after filing his return. According to the complaint, the Tax Assistant demanded a bribe of ₹600, approximately 10% of the refund amount for processing the refund.

Aggrieved by the demand, the complainant approached the CBI, which verified the allegations and laid a trap.

Before the High Court, the appellant contended that he had no official role in processing refunds pertaining to the relevant Income Tax Ward and that the work relating to the complainant's return was handled by another official. It was also argued that there were inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the timing of the complaint and registration of the FIR, which, according to the defence, cast serious doubt on the prosecution case.

The CBI, on the other hand, submitted that all essential ingredients of the offence: demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification were proved beyond reasonable doubt through consistent oral, documentary, and scientific evidence. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the complainant, shadow witness, independent witnesses, trap team members, and the investigating officer, along with CFSL reports confirming phenolphthalein traces.

Though not an eyewitness, the evidence of phenolphthalein traces evidence conclusively established that the accused had handled the tainted currency, thereby corroborating acceptance and recovery.

After an extensive appraisal of evidence, the bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey rejected the defence arguments. The Court held that minor discrepancies regarding time did not undermine the core prosecution case when demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money stood firmly established.

The Court stated that once demand and acceptance are proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act operates against the accused, and the burden shifts to him to rebut it. In the present case, the appellant failed to discharge this burden.

The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's judgment and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appeal was thus dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

Case Title: Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 468 of 2025

Counsel for Appellant: Sumit Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondents: Mukeshwar Dayal

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(Pat)1