Bengaluru Court Convicts Former ED Officer In Bribery Case, Imposes 3 Year Sentence And ₹5 Lakh Fine
A Sessions Court in Bengaluru has sentenced a former Officer of Enforcement Directorate (ED) to three-year imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5 lakh for demanding and accepting bribe from a finance firm which was under investigation by the central agency in relation to Chinese Loan Apps. Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Manjunath...
A Sessions Court in Bengaluru has sentenced a former Officer of Enforcement Directorate (ED) to three-year imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 5 lakh for demanding and accepting bribe from a finance firm which was under investigation by the central agency in relation to Chinese Loan Apps.
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Manjunath Sangreshi ordered:
“The accused-Lalit Bazad is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 Years and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000 for the offence punishable U/Sec.384 of Indian Penal Code.Both the above sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.”
As per the prosecution case, on 28.01.2021 and 29.01.2021, when Mikhil Innani, Diksha and Harish Innani visited the Office of Enforcement Directorate, in connection with a case registered by ED, Bengaluru, the accused had demanded undue advantage of Rs. 50 Lakhs in cash to close the matter of M/s. Apollo Finvest.
It was alleged that the accused being a public servant intentionally and dishonestly threatened Mikhil Innani–the Managing Director and CEO of M/s. Apollo Finvest–that he will register a case against the firm and also threatened to drag on the matter for 10 years and to ruin the name and business of the firm and its management, if Innani failed to pay Rs.50 Lakh in cash.
The accused pleaded not guilty and contended that prosecution had not obtained proper prior permission to investigate the case as provided Under section 17A of PC Act and there was a delay in registering the FIR.
The court referring to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses said:
“Though the accused had no any power to investigate the case of PW.1 (Mikhil Innani) except to assist PW.12, but he has put PW.1 in fear of freezing his company's bank accounts and causing damage to his company, thereby he demanded Rs.50 Lakh and finally succeeded in extorting Rs.5 Lakh from PW.1 on 09.02.2021 in the night (h)ours. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the demand of gratification by the accused from PW.1, with cogent and satisfactory evidence.”
Stating that the presumption under Section 20 (Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage) PC Act is a presumption of law the court said that this presumption is an exception to the general rule as to burden proof in criminal cases.
It said that this presumption always shifts the onus on accused to rebut the same and once it is proved that public servant has demanded and accepted or obtained money or undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved, that he had accepted or obtained the money or undue advantage "as a motive or reward for performing or to cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly" by himself or by any public servant.
The court said “In the case on hand, the prosecution has established that the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused from PW.1. Therefore, certainly this court can draw a presumption as provided U/Sec.20 of PC Act as against the accused and in favour of prosecution. Though said presumption is rebuttable presumption; however, in the instant case, the accused has not successfully rebutted the presumption under section 20 of PC Act.”
It thereafter held:
“I find that accused-Lalit Bazad, while acting in his official capacity, as Enforcement officer at Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru did demand bribe amount of Rs.50 Lakh initially and finally accepted/obtained bribe of Rs.5,00,000/- from PW.1 by way of extortion in order to de-freeze or not to freeze the bank accounts of PW.1 and close the matter of company of PW.1 which was under investigation by the ED relating to Chinese Loan Apps. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved the charges against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.”
Case title: The State by CBI/ACB, Bengaluru v/s Lalit Bazad