30 May,2026 01:32 PM IST | Thane | mid-day online correspondent
Representational Image
A special CBI court in Maharashtra's Thane district has acquitted an Income Tax officer accused of demanding a bribe from a businessman nearly two decades ago, observing that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial element of illegal demand required to secure a conviction under corruption laws.
Special Judge D.S. Deshmukh on Friday acquitted Income Tax officer Anil Ratnakar Mallel, 44, who had been facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with a case registered in 2006.
The court held that the recovery of money alone was insufficient to prove the offence in the absence of convincing evidence that a bribe had actually been demanded.
In its order, the court observed that establishing an illegal demand for money is a fundamental requirement in corruption cases and cannot be substituted merely by the recovery of tainted cash.
"The evidence of recovery of tainted amount from Mallel when evidence of the previous demand is lacking, or is not satisfactory, would be totally insufficient to hold the accused guilty," the court noted.
The judge further stated that once the prosecution fails to prove the initial demand, the evidence gathered during the trap operation becomes questionable and cannot, by itself, form the basis for a conviction.
According to the prosecution, the Central Bureau of Investigation's Anti-Corruption Branch conducted a trap operation on December 13, 2006, following a complaint filed by businessman Jaisukhlal Waghani, proprietor of J.P. Electronics.
The complainant alleged that officials had demanded Rs 2.75 lakh to clear a scrutiny file related to his business.
Based on the complaint, the CBI laid a trap and subsequently registered a case against Mallel and Additional Commissioner Pankaj Garg.
However, proceedings against Garg were later abated following his death in 2024.
During the trial, the court examined audio transcripts and witness testimonies presented by the prosecution.
The judgment noted that the recorded conversations did not clearly establish that Mallel had demanded a bribe. Instead, the transcripts suggested that the complainant had proactively offered money.
The court also found inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, weakening the case against the accused.
These discrepancies, the judge observed, created doubts about the prosecution's version of events and made it difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that an illegal demand had been made.
Another factor that weighed in favour of the accused was the nature of the office environment where the alleged trap took place.
The court pointed out that Mallel was working in an open office hall and that the complainant was seated close to his desk drawer.
According to the judgment, the possibility that the cash could have been placed in the drawer while the officer's attention was elsewhere could not be completely ruled out.
This further weakened the prosecution's argument that the recovery of the money directly linked the accused to the alleged offence.
Apart from doubts regarding the alleged demand, the court identified several procedural shortcomings in the investigation.
The judgment referred to concerns regarding the validity of the prosecution sanction, a delay of 17 days in registering the first information report (FIR), and questions related to the handling and integrity of sample evidence collected during the investigation.
Taking these factors into account, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted Mallel of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(With inputs from PTI)
