Bank Manager’s ₹5,000 Loan-Release Bribe Conviction Stands: J&K&L HC Cuts Jail Term To One Year

The appellant, then Manager of Jammu Rural Bank, was accused of demanding ₹5,000 from the complainant for release of the second instalment of a sanctioned loan.

Following the complainant’s written complaint, a trap was laid on 14 June 2010.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted the tainted currency, which was recovered from his trouser pocket; hand-wash and pocket-wash solutions turned pink.

The Special Judge convicted him under Sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 RPC, sentencing him to two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine for each offence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the sanction, the proof of demand and acceptance, and the recovery, relying in part on the shadow witness’s hostile testimony and his defence that the complainant had thrust the money into his pocket.

Under Sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 RPC, the prosecution must establish the relevant demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification; recovery alone does not establish the offence.

The court relied on the principles in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2023) 4 SCC 731), that demand and acceptance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and that a statutory presumption follows only once the foundational facts are established.

A complainant or trap witness is not automatically an accomplice whose evidence must be corroborated in every case; the evidence must be assessed on its reliability, and corroboration, if required, may be circumstantial and its extent depends on the case.

Evidence Act, Sections 133 and 114, discussed at paras. 24, 29, pp. 17–25, 38–39.

A sanction may be proved through the sanction order and evidence that the relevant facts were considered and satisfaction recorded; failure to forward a particular file does not, by itself, establish non-application of mind.

The sanctioning authority identified the detailed sanction order and testified that it had examined the loan terms, subsidy and applicable scheme; the court therefore found no basis to invalidate the sanction merely because the loan file was not forwarded.

On the trap evidence, the complainant testified to the demand and payment, and the shadow witness—although hostile on aspects of the recovery—also stated that the appellant demanded the money and that the complainant handed it over.

The court treated the trap-team and independent-witness evidence, the recovery from the appellant’s pocket, and the positive hand- and pocket-wash tests as supporting the complainant’s account; it rejected the defence explanation and found the defence witnesses had arrived only after the appellant was apprehended.

The court also considered the appellant’s presence at the complainant’s shop consistent with the prosecution case and found the evidence sufficient to establish demand, acceptance and recovery.

It dismissed the appeal against conviction but reduced the imprisonment from two years to one year for each offence, with the sentences to remain concurrent and the fines unchanged.

The appellant was directed to surrender within one month to serve the sentence.