Madras HC Acquits Hospital Clerk In ₹150 Fitness-Certificate Bribery Case, Finding Bribe Demand Unproved Despite Trap Recovery

The appellant, a record clerk at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from PW2 in connection with issuing a physical fitness certificate.

After PW2 complained to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, a trap was laid: the appellant received three ₹50 notes, returned one note to PW2, and handed over the certificate; his hand wash turned pink and the remaining notes were recovered.

The Special Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed concurrent two-year terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines.

He appealed against the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded illegal gratification, rather than the prescribed fee for the certificate, as required to sustain the convictions.

2. Whether recovery of the tainted currency and the appellant’s handling of it could sustain conviction in the absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification.

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as applicable to the alleged 2008 conduct.

It stated that proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential to offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), and that mere possession or recovery of tainted currency, without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, is insufficient.

The statutory presumption under Section 20 is rebuttable and arises only after the prosecution establishes the relevant acceptance of gratification; the Court stated that Section 20 applies to offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(a) and (b), but not Section 13(1)(d).

It also considered the requirement for a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act in relation to the call-detail records.

The Court found that PW2’s complaint did not disclose that the certificate had already been prepared or that a fee was payable, and that the prescribed fee had not been paid.

The evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 supported the existence of a lawful fee, while PW3 confirmed that PW2 had not mentioned the fee issue to him.

The Court considered the appellant’s immediate explanation that the money was for the certificate fee, which PW5 and PW9 acknowledged, and regarded the return of one ₹50 note to PW2 as an unusual circumstance inconsistent with the alleged bribe transaction.

It also found that the call records lacked the required Section 65B certificate and that the prosecution had not otherwise established the alleged demand.

On the evidence as a whole, the Court held that the defence had raised a reasonable doubt and that recovery and hand-wash evidence did not cure the failure to prove demand.

It directed that any fine paid be refunded and that any bail bond be cancelled.

The concluding paragraph refers to a judgment dated 30 September 2019 and a Special Court at Villupuram, although the judgment’s opening identifies the conviction under appeal as dated 28 March 2018 and passed by the Special Court at Coimbatore.