Chhattisgarh High Court acquits former SDO accused of accepting ₹200 bribe in 1998

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of a man accused of accepting a ₹200 bribe in 1998 [Shatrugan Lal Verma vs State of Madhya Pradesh]. .Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas noted that the trial court, in convicting the accused, failed to record a finding regarding the accused's demand for money and its subsequent receipt.On the contrary, the appellant had categorically stated that the money was given to him forcefully and he did not accept the same, the Court noted.Therefore, the Court concluded that the basic ingredient to establish an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act was not proved by the prosecution.."Learned trial Court while convicting the accused nowhere recorded its finding whether the accused has demanded money and thereafter the money was given to him. On the contrary, the appellant has categorically stated that the complainant tried to give forcefully money and he did not accept the same, therefore, basic ingredient to prove the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act has not been proved by the prosecution by any cogent evidence," the Court's judgment stated..The complaint against the accused was filed by a then Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).According to the complaint, the accused, then the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) Phones at Bilaspur, had demanded ₹200 from him for changing a faulty telephone instrument. Based on the written complaint, an unnumbered first information report (FIR) was filed and a trap was set to arrest the accused. Subsequently, the accused came to be arrested after allegedly being caught red handed in the trap.The trial court sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Aggrieved, he moved the High Court..According to the accused, the trial court failed to consider that the sanction granted for his prosecution was not valid and was granted without application of mind.Further, he contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses did not establish that the appellant had demanded a bribe, a condition necessary for establishing a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.The appellant informed the Court that the amount was seized from a peon, Ram Bharose and not him. Hence, he argued that he should not have been convicted.Further, he told the Court that Ram Bharose was initially the one who was accused and the appellant was convicted based on Ram Bharose's statement under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).He contended that the due procedure under Section 306 was not followed and hence, he deserved to be acquitted.The appellant also highlighted that the witnesses who participated in the trap were interested witnesses as they were not independent..On the other hand, the CBI opposed the plea and stated that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt after recording evidence of witnesses.It argued that merely because the procedure under Section 306 CrPC was not followed, would not vitiate the trial..The Court noted that the complainant in his examination-in-chief had stated that the accused had instructed him to give the money to Ram Bharose but he nonetheless gave it to the accused who then gave it to Ram Bharose. However, in his cross examination, he did not mention the demand of money, the Court further noted.Moreover, the Court observed that it was apparent that the proper procedure for submitting an application under Section 306 of CrPC was not followed in order to examine Ram Bharose as a prosecution witness, whose statement led to the conviction of the appellant.Accordingly, the Court held that Ram Bharose's statement should not have been considered by the trial court.Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court failed to record a finding regarding the accused's demand for money and its subsequent receipt..Considering the entire facts and circumstance and the evidence of the witnesses on record, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It explained that there was suspicion regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe for which the appellant was charged. Thus, the Court determined that the trial court had committed illegality and accordingly, set aside the order of conviction and sentence..The appellant was represented by advocate Somnath Verma.The CBI was represented by advocate Himanshu Pandey..[Read Judgment]