The Jharkhand High Court recently upheld the conviction of a 75-year-old former railway parcel clerk for accepting a ₹100 bribe from a man seeking to transport his motorcycle from Hatia to Samastipur in 1995 [Kali Shankar Dhobi v. State of Jharkhand].
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, however, reduced the sentence of Kali Shankar Dhobi, taking into account his age, the 31-year pendency of the case and the fact that he had already been dismissed from service.
The Court rejected Dhobi's argument that the ₹100 he demanded was merely an "extra charge" and not a bribe.
"Any money, which is other than a legal charges demanded by any public servant for doing his lawful duty shall amount to demand of bribe or illegal gratification furnishing motive or reward for doing such official work. The appellant cannot escape from his liability merely because he has used the word ‘Extra’ not the word 'Bribe’ directly," held the Court in its September 10 judgment.
The case arose from a complaint lodged before the CBI on April 27, 1995 by one Nirmal Kumar Bengani, who had approached Dhobi, then a parcel clerk at Hatia Railway Station, to book his motorcycle for transportation to Samastipur by train. The official booking charge was ₹203, but Dhobi allegedly demanded another ₹100, which Bengani alleged was a bribe.
Bengani had then approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which laid a trap, planning an operation to catch Dhobi accepting a bribe the next day. The CBI treated a ₹100 currency note with phenolphthalein powder (a chemical used to detect contact with the currency note). Two independent witnesses accompanied Bengani to the parcel office while other CBI officials waited nearby.
According to the prosecution evidence, Dhobi first prepared the motorcycle booking receipt for ₹203 and then demanded the additional ₹100. Bengani handed him the treated note, which Dhobi allegedly placed in a drawer. Bengani then gave the pre-arranged signal, prompting the CBI team to enter the office.
The ₹100 note was recovered from the drawer and its number matched the number recorded before the trap. Dhobi's right hand was also washed in a sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink. A forensic examination later confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in the samples.
Dhobi denied demanding or accepting a bribe and challenged the prosecution evidence. His lawyer pointed to discrepancies in the witnesses' accounts.
The High Court, however, held that these discrepancies did not undermine the prosecution case. It noted that the booking charge was ₹203 and that Dhobi had not explained why he demanded an additional ₹100.
Additionally, the Court explained that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish the offence; merely recovering money from an accused is not enough. In this case, it found that the prosecution had established the demand, acceptance and recovery of the ₹100 note.
The Court, therefore, upheld Dhobi's conviction under Section 7 (accepting or attempting to obtain a bribe by a public servant) and Section 13(2) (punishment for criminal misconduct by a public servant) read with Section 13(1)(d) (obtaining a valuable thing or monetary advantage through corrupt or illegal means) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
However, it reduced his sentence from 1 year to 6 months for the Section 7 offence and from 1.5 years to 1 year for the Section 13 offence. Both sentences are to run concurrently.
Additionally, the Court also directed Dhobi, who was on bail, to surrender before the trial court within 2 months.
Advocates Sameer Saurabh and Divya appeared for Dhobi.
Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) Prashant Pallav along with AC ASGI Aryan Anurag represented the State.
[Read Judgment]