Mere recovery of tainted cash cannot lead to conviction in bribery case: Chhattisgarh HC

RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted an education department official in a decade-old bribery case, ruling that mere recovery of tainted currency notes without concrete proof of a bribe demand cannot lead to conviction.

A single bench of Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi quashed a trial court's 2017 order that had sentenced Murali Prasad Choudhary, an accountant posted in the office of the District Education Officer (DEO) in Surajpur district, to prison.

The high court in Bilaspur passed the order on September 18.

Choudhary (41) had challenged the special court's order convicting him under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

"Demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence, and unless the prosecution proves such demand beyond reasonable doubt, mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused cannot lead to conviction," the high court observed.

According to the order, Mohit Ram Rajwade, the president/manager of Maa Saraswati Shiksha Samiti, had approached the DEO office in connection with recognition of a school run by the organisation in 2014.

The prosecution alleged that on June 20, 2014, Choudhary demanded Rs 15,000 from Rajwade and asked him to pay Rs 5,000 immediately, of which Rs 4,900 was allegedly paid.

Rajwade approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Bilaspur, on June 21, 2014, and submitted a written complaint.

During verification, he was instructed to record his conversation with Choudhary, and the prosecution relied upon these conversations, during which the bribe amount was allegedly brought down to Rs 8,000.

Based on the complaint and the alleged recordings, the ACB laid a trap on June 30, 2014.

According to the prosecution, Choudhary accepted Rs 8,000 from the complainant, counted the currency notes and kept them in the left pocket of his trousers, following which he was apprehended.

The ACB filed a chargesheet against Choudhary, and the special court subsequently convicted and sentenced him.

Choudhary's counsel, Ashutosh Trivedi, argued that proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was essential to establish the offences.

He submitted that Rajwade and another witness, Kunwar Sai, had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

Opposing the appeal, Deputy Advocate General D R Minj argued that the tainted money was recovered from the left pocket of Choudhary's trousers and that the recovery was supported by independent as well as police witnesses.

The High Court, however, noted that the complainant was the primary witness on the issue of demand and acceptance, and that he had completely turned hostile.

Rajwade categorically deposed that Choudhary had never demanded any bribe from him, and stated that one Dr Pratap had informed him that a bank fixed deposit account was required to obtain recognition for the school and that he had handed over Rs 9,000 to Dr Pratap for that purpose, it said.

The complainant also said his signatures on police documents and panchnamas were obtained at a rest house without their contents being read out to him, the court noted.

The judge observed that none of the witnesses supported the most essential ingredient of the offence, namely, the demand for illegal gratification.