Gujarat HC Acquits Railway Chief Clerk in Rs 500 Posting-Order Bribery Case, Citing Contradictions on Demand and Acceptance

The appellant, a Chief Clerk in the Western Railway, was accused of demanding ₹500 from a railway employee for a posting order. The complainant alleged a demand on an earlier occasion and again on 12 October 1995; following a complaint to the CBI, a trap was conducted, and the tainted money was allegedly recovered from the appellant on 19 October 1995.

The Special Judge convicted him under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; he appealed against the conviction.

Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of the relevant foundational facts—demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification—is required to establish guilt; those facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Under Section 20, once the foundational facts for an offence under Section 7 are proved, the court must raise the statutory presumption that the gratification was for the purpose contemplated by that section; the presumption is rebuttable and does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii).

The Court also applied the principles that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that, where two views are reasonably possible, the view favouring the accused is to be preferred, relying on Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170, and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544.

The Court found that the complainant had not specified when, where or in what circumstances the initial demand was made, and that the alleged demand on 12 October was not independently supported.

The core witnesses gave materially different accounts of who prepared the complaint and when, and of where the bribe was accepted and recovered.

The evidence also indicated that the posting file was handled by other railway officials and contained no signature or handwriting of the appellant; the Court noted the non-examination of material witnesses and discrepancies concerning the file’s contents.

These weaknesses left demand and acceptance unproved beyond reasonable doubt, so the foundational facts for Section 20 were not established.

The Court also questioned whether the sanctioning authority had properly considered the relevant material, but its conclusion on guilt rested on the prosecution’s failure to prove demand and acceptance.

It allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the conviction and sentence, cancelled the bail bonds, and directed refund of any fine paid.