The High Court of Chhattisgarh has acquitted a former Bill Assistant of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (M.P.S.R.T.C.), setting aside his conviction in a bribery case dating back to 1986. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru allowed the criminal appeal, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the mere recovery of tainted currency notes is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Background
The case against the appellant, Jageshwar Prasad Awadhiya, originated on October 24, 1986. The prosecution alleged that Mr. Awadhiya, then a Bill Assistant in the Divisional Workshop of M.P.S.R.T.C. at Raipur, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 100 from the complainant, Ashok Kumar Verma. The demand was allegedly made to clear Mr. Verma’s arrears bill for his service period between 1981 and 1985.
Following a complaint lodged by Mr. Verma with the Lokayukt, a trap team was constituted. Two currency notes of Rs. 50 each were treated with phenolphthalein powder and given to the complainant. On October 25, 1996, the trap was executed. The prosecution claimed that after the complainant handed the money to the appellant and gave a pre-arranged signal, the trap team apprehended the appellant. The currency notes were recovered, and a subsequent test of the appellant’s hand-wash in a sodium carbonate solution turned pink, indicating contact with the treated notes.
The Special Judge & 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Special Case No. 01/2004, found the appellant guilty. On December 9, 2004, he was convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine for each offence. This judgment was challenged by the appellant before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions:
Mr. Keshav Dewangan, counsel for the appellant, argued for a false implication. He submitted that the appellant was not in a position to prepare or disburse the complainant’s arrears on the date of the alleged demand, as the necessary approval from a higher authority was only received on November 19, 1986, nearly a month later. This was supported by the testimony of defence witnesses.
The counsel further contended that the prosecution failed to produce any credible oral or documentary evidence to prove the demand for a bribe. It was argued that defence witnesses had testified that the complainant had attempted to give money to the appellant, which the appellant refused.
A key legal argument raised was that the sanction for prosecution was issued on February 18, 1988, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, whereas the trial was conducted under the new Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which came into force on August 1, 1988. Citing the decision in Sukhdev Singh Jamwal vs. State of Maharashtra, the counsel argued that this discrepancy vitiated the proceedings.
State’s Submissions:
Conversely, Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General for the State, supported the trial court’s judgment. He argued that the prosecution had proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The State contended that the appellant, a public servant, had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 100 to process the complainant’s arrears bill. The successful trap, the positive phenolphthalein test, and the recovery of the notes were presented as conclusive proof of guilt.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court meticulously scrutinized the evidence on record to determine if the prosecution had proven the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the illegal gratification.
On Demand: The court found the evidence regarding the demand to be weak and contradictory. The judgment notes, “The only evidence regarding the alleged demand in the present case is the testimony of the Complainant (PW2).” The court observed that the shadow witness (PW3, Abdul Rashid) and another official witness (PW6, Sanjay Kumar Diwan) both admitted in their cross-examinations that they were positioned too far away to hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. The Investigating Officer (PW8, Balakdas Dhanajay) also admitted the same. The court concluded, “from the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, demand is not proved.”
On Acceptance and Recovery: The court found similar evidentiary gaps regarding the acceptance of the bribe. It noted that none of the key prosecution witnesses had personally seen the appellant accept the money. Furthermore, the court highlighted a “fundamental contradiction” in the prosecution’s case regarding the denomination of the recovered money. While PW6 stated it was a single Rs. 100 note, other witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, deposed that two Rs. 50 notes were used. The judgment states, “Such inconsistency about the denomination of the tainted notes strikes at the root of the prosecution case, as the very identity of the incriminating material is rendered doubtful.”
The court also considered the defence version, supported by witnesses who testified that the complainant had previously tried to force money upon the appellant. The testimony of DW4 (M.P. Dablee), who clarified that the arrears bill could not have been prepared without prior sanction, was also deemed significant.
Citing established Supreme Court precedents, including B. Jaiyaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh, the court reiterated that “demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence.”
On the Issue of Sanction: The court addressed the appellant’s argument regarding the validity of the sanction. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Nar Bahadur Bhandari and Anr. v. State of Sikkim & Others and held that Section 30(2) of the 1988 Act contains a saving clause. This clause deems actions taken under the repealed 1947 Act to be valid under the new Act, provided they are not inconsistent. Therefore, the court found no merit in this particular legal challenge.
Decision
Despite rejecting the argument on sanction, the court concluded that the prosecution’s primary case was unsustainable. The judgment states, “The failure of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification render the proceedings unsustainable. The charges against the appellant are, therefore, not proved.”
The court found the trial court’s conviction to be unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 9, 2004, were set aside, and the appellant, Jageshwar Prasad Awadhiya, was acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds were ordered to remain in force for a further period of six months as per statutory requirements.
