Narendra Kumar vs The C.B.I.

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Mr. Deepak Dhoundiyal lodged a written complaint dated 6.4.2010 with CBI with the averments that he is running a firm in the name of M/s Advance Bussol, a manufacturing unit of automobile parts, situated at Plot No. 1 & 2 Mini Industrial Area, Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar. The said firm is located in Excise Duty Exempted Zone. The complainant had to submit an intimation of production to the Custom & Central Excise Department to avail the excise duty exemption. He accordingly submitted the intimation vide letter dated 14.9.2009 and with reference to this letter, certain clarifications were sought by the applicant, who desired to produce certain records regarding production and in compliance thereof the complainant submitted his reply on 2.12.2009. On 5.4.2010 when the complainant went to Custom & Excise Office, Range-II, Rudrapur to enquire regarding the returns to be filed for the quarter Jan-March 2010, the applicant Narendra Kumar, who was posted as Superintendent at the said office and was having excise jurisdiction over the firm of the complainant, told the complainant that he had already sent a positive report for the survey of his firm and demanded Rs. 10,000/- for the same and further threatened the complainant that if he would not pay the aforesaid bribe money by the evening of 7.4.2010, he would not accept the quarterly return.

After verification of the complainant an RC was registered against the applicant on 7.4.2010. Thereafter a trap was laid on 7.4.2010 itself in the premises of office of Superintendent, Central Excise, Rudrapur. The trap team of CBI also included two independent witnesses, viz., Vinod Kumar and Yogesh Kumar. The applicant was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe money of Rs. 10,000/- which was also recovered from him. The numbers of GC notes mentioned in the pre-trap memo also tallied with the numbers of the recovered GC notes. After completing the further trap proceedings, the applicant was arrested at 3 pm on the same day.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Contrary to it, learned Counsel for the CBI argued that the applicant was caught red handed by the CBI trap team while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant and the motive behind demanding and accepting the said bribe is also evident.

Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of FIR; recovery memo and other papers available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that a prima facie case u/s 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the accused applicant. The applicant while posted as Superintendent, Custom & Central Excise Department, Rudrapur demanded Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant for submitting a positive report for the survey of his firm and further threatened that he would not accept the quarterly return if the said bribe money would not be paid to him. Thereafter the applicant was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the aforesaid bribe money by the CBI trap team in the presence of independent witnesses. The offence is very serious and grave offence. Hence, I do not find any ground to release the accused applicant on bail.

The bail application is accordingly rejected.