Calcutta High Court Denies Relief To Excise Officer Caught While Allegedly Demanding Bribe To Grant Licence

The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash corruption proceedings against a Deputy Excise Collector accused in a trap case, holding that the existence of prima facie material showing demand and handling of tainted money must be tested at trial.Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed a criminal revision filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, a West Bengal Civil Services officer, had been arrested by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in 2016 following allegations that he demanded illegal gratification for facilitating an excise licence.The Court noted that the prosecution's case was based on trap evidence, including pre-trap and post-trap memoranda, recovery of tainted currency, and forensic confirmation of phenolphthalein on the petitioner's hands. Statements of the shadow witness and other materials in the case diary indicated a demand for illegal gratification and subsequent handling of tainted money by the accused.Reiterating settled law, the Court observed that “demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non” for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, relying on decisions such as Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh. However, at the stage of quashing, the Court emphasised that it is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists—not to conduct a mini-trial.Addressing the petitioner's contention that no preliminary enquiry was conducted, the Court clarified that in trap cases, a preliminary enquiry is generally not mandatory. Relying on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, it observed that while corruption cases may permit preliminary enquiry, trap cases are an exception due to the need for secrecy and immediacy.At the same time, the Court took note of a Government Notification requiring the ACB to undertake preliminary enquiry and obtain assignment from the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department before investigation. It observed that these procedural requirements were not strictly followed in the present case. However, such lapses, by themselves, were not sufficient at this stage to quash the proceedings in the face of substantive incriminating material.The Court also rejected the argument that the alleged offence could not be attributed to the petitioner due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, observing that corruption does not operate within rigid territorial limits and public servants may claim influence beyond their posted jurisdiction.On the effect of parallel departmental proceedings, the Court held that the State Administrative Tribunal's decision setting aside disciplinary proceedings did not warrant quashing of the criminal case, as the departmental proceedings had not culminated in a full adjudication on merits after evidence.Finding that the prosecution had placed sufficient materials indicating demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the Court held that the case must proceed to trial where such evidence can be tested. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.Case: Sandip Kumar Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Case No: CRR 3841 OF 2017Click here to read order

Calcutta High Court Denies Relief To Excise Officer Caught While Allegedly Demanding Bribe To Grant Licence

Srinjoy Das

Tags