Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Health Department Clerk In Bribe Trap After Complainant Says Clerk Never Demanded A Bribe

The appellant, an Assistant Grade-II in the Directorate of Health Services, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe in connection with the settlement of the complainant’s wife’s leave claim.

The prosecution alleged that, after the complainant reported the demand to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, a trap was conducted and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant’s trouser pocket.

The trial court convicted and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine for each offence, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and the principle that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish the relevant offences; recovery alone does not suffice.

Relying on Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi, (2023) 4 SCC 731), it noted that demand and acceptance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and that the statutory presumption under Section 20 applies to an offence under Section 7 only after the foundational facts are established.

The Court also relied on Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., and other Supreme Court authorities for the rule that, without proof of demand, mere possession or recovery of money cannot sustain conviction.

As to the recorded conversation, it referred to the requirements of proving speaker identification and recording authenticity, and to the evidentiary concern regarding electronic evidence without the requisite source and authenticity.

The complainant testified that he had not previously met the appellant and specifically denied that the appellant demanded or accepted a bribe; his evidence instead attributed the relevant communication to Ramteke, the clerk dealing with the file.

The Court found that Ramteke was not prosecuted and that the evidence did not establish the appellant’s knowledge of, or participation in, the alleged arrangement.

Although tainted currency was recovered and the appellant’s handwash turned pink, the Court held that these circumstances could not replace proof of the appellant’s demand and acceptance.

The recorded conversation did not cure that deficiency: the relevant demand was unclear, the witnesses could not identify the voices, and no voice sampling or frequency test established that the recording contained the appellant’s voice.

In those circumstances, the prosecution had not established the foundational facts necessary for conviction or for raising the presumption under Section 20.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by giving him the benefit of doubt.

His bail bond was directed to remain in operation for six months under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023, and the trial court record was ordered to be returned.