E-Paper
City bizman, agent get 3-year jail term for trying to bribe custom officer
Mumbai A special CBI court has sentenced a city businessman and a customs clearing agent to three years imprisonment for offering bribe to an Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Mumbai A special CBI court has sentenced a city businessman and a customs clearing agent to three years imprisonment for offering bribe to an Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The two were held after the officer Deepak Pandit filed a complaint. Ironically, the officer himself faces prosecution for allegedly amassing disproportionate assets.
Pandit had alleged that based on specific input on April 9, 2018, he had intercepted a tempo loaded with mobile accessories. During the search he found discrepancies in the seized the goods.
On April 10, 2018 Manav Jagarwal, and his relative - Rajendra Rajpurohit allegedly approached Pandit to get the seized goods released. Rajpurohit claimed to be one of the Directors of M/s Avisatha Pvt Ltd.
They furnished bill of entries regarding some of seized goods. Accordingly, 178 cartons out of 183 were released and five cartons were detained by the complainant for want of bill of entries and Custom duty payment receipts. On the same day, Hemanshoo Ajmera approached Pandit on behalf of Rajpurohit with an offer to pay him a bribe of Rs. 20 lakhs for releasing the goods.
After this, Pandit lodged a complaint with CBI on April 12, 2018.
On the basis of the complaint, CBI set a trap for the accused who were to come to hand over the bribe amount. The two - Jagarwal and Ajmera were caught while handing over the bribe amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the custom officer. They were arrested on the same day, but were granted bail.
The defense questioned the credibility of Pandit’s complain pointing out that he has been facing prosecution for having acquired assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The court refused to accept the defense and observed that though there is a case pending against the complainant, the said aspect cannot wipe out the entire credence of the prosecution case.
“There is sufficient evidence available on record which established that the accused repeatedly visited the complainant to release the seized goods. Therefore, the motive behind the offer and giving bribe is established by the prosecution,” the court observed.
