Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On 28.01.2021 and 29.01.2021, when CW.1 Sri. Mikhil Innani, CW.2 Smt. Diksha and CW.3 Sri. Harish Innani visited Office of Enforcement Directorate ['ED' in short], Bengaluru, in connection with enquiry in ECIR No.3/2021 registered by ED, Bengaluru; at that time, accused, being the public servant as Enforcement Officer, working at Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru, demanded undue advantage of Rs.50 lakhs in cash from CW.1 to close the matter of M/s. Apollo Finvest and received undue advantage of Rs.5 lakhs from CW.1 which was sent through CW.7-Manavendra Bhati on 09.02.2021 at Levels Pub and Kitchens situated at J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru at night hours as a reward for the improper and dishonest performance of a public duty and accused being the public servant as Enforcement Officer at ED Bengaluru, has intentionally and dishonestly threatened CW.1-Mikhil Innani to register a case against M/s. Apollo Finvest and also threatened to drag on the said matter for at least 10 years and to ruin 4 Spl.CC.9/2022 the name and business of M/s. Apollo Finvest and its management, if CW.1 fails to pay Rs.50 lakhs in cash and subsequently accused was succeeded in extorting Rs.5 lakhs from CW.1 and thereby the accused has committed the offences punishable U/Sec.384 of Indian Penal Code and U/Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. After hearing both side regarding framing of charge, the charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 384 of IPC and under Section 7 of the PC Act. After framing of charges, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 Spl.CC.9/2022

5. In order to prove their case, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses as per PW.1 to PW.19 and also marked 32 documents as per Ex.P1 to P.32. MO.1 and 2 are also marked. After closing the prosecution side evidence, the statement of accused has been recorded as provided under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution evidence. After recording the statement of accused, the accused has submitted that he has no defence evidence, but stated that he would file his written statement as provided U/Sec.313(5) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused has filed written statement under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C., in support of his defense.

96. Lastly, the learned counsel for the accused has contended that the prosecution has not proved the offence under section 383 of IPC with cogent and reliable evidence so as to convict the accused under section 384 of IPC. Hence, it is necessary to extract the provision under Section 383 of IPC, here for reference. Sec.383 of IPC defines 'Extortion'. Sec.383 of IPC reads as under:

383. Extortion - Whoever, intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.

13. The offence under section 7 of PC Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Further, the offence under section 383 of IPC is punishable under section 384 of IPC with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both.

14. After keeping in mind the ratio laid down in above cited judgments while awarding the sentence, this Court should bear in mind the expectation of the society to prevent the corruption in the public office by providing prompt conviction and stern sentence. Therefore, after considering the mitigating and aggravating factors, facts and circumstances of the case and after having 100 Spl.CC.9/2022 considered the submission of both side, this Court proceeds to pass the following;