Back
No Proof of Demand: Acquits Ajit Kumar in 16-Year-Old Bribery Case
The on , acquitted Ajit Kumar, a former government clerk who had already served his full four-year sentence in a 16-year-old bribery case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational element of . A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the convictions under , clearing Kumar's name after he pursued the appeal solely to restore his reputation.
A Long Road to Vindication: The Background
Ajit Kumar was an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella, Jharkhand. In , the complainant, Durgapad Singh Munda—a newly appointed orderly at Government High School, Sirum—approached Kumar to release his pending salary. Kumar allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000. Unwilling to pay, Munda lodged a complaint with the , on . Following verification, a trap was laid on , leading to Kumar's arrest and the recovery of marked currency notes from his rented residence.
The
convicted Kumar in
, sentencing him to four years'
and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for each offence. The
upheld the conviction in
. By the time the
issued notice in
, Kumar had already completed his sentence. His counsel informed the Court that the appeal was being pursued
"to get his name cleared."
The Prosecution Case and Trap Operation
The prosecution's case hinged on the of PW-1, the complainant, and recovery of tainted money. The trap team included police officials and two independent employees of the District Education Office (PW-8 and PW-9). However, the evidence revealed glaring inconsistencies:
- No eyewitness to demand or payment: None of the 12 prosecution witnesses saw Kumar demand a bribe or receive money from Munda. The transaction allegedly occurred inside Kumar's residence, with the trap team waiting outside.
- Contradictory narratives: Some witnesses testified that Kumar was apprehended at his residence, while others claimed he was arrested at his office and then taken home, where the money was recovered from under his pillow.
-
Unreliable independent witnesses:
PW-8 and PW-9 admitted they signed seizure memos without reading them, and PW-9 stated it was
"on the direction of the police that he deposed that currency notes were recovered from the residence of the accused."
PW-5, a trap team member, admitted that Munda did not hand over the bribe money in his presence and that no money was recovered from Kumar at the office. The investigating officer, PW-11, conceded that he did not witness any money exchange.
Arguments: Demand vs. Recovery
For the Appellant (Ajit Kumar): Senior counsel argued that proof of demand is the for an offence under the . The prosecution relied entirely on the complainant's uncorroborated word. The phenolphthalein test, while showing pink when Kumar's hands were dipped, was conducted belatedly and could not substitute for of . , he submitted, is insufficient for conviction.
For the Respondent (State of Jharkhand): countered that on a wholesome reading of evidence, stood proved. Discrepancies were minor and did not dislodge the conviction. He argued that since Kumar had already served his sentence, the appeal had become an academic exercise.
Legal Precedents: The of Bribery Offences
The anchored its reasoning on a series of authoritative decisions:
- : "Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, the proof of demand, , would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act."
- : "Proof of of illegal gratification by a public servant as a by the prosecution is a in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under ."
-
:
"Mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient to establish an offence under respectively."
-
:
"No one saw the appellant making the demand for bribe and no one saw PW-1 handing over the bribe money to the appellant nor acceptance of the same by the appellant."
Drawing from these precedents, the Court reinforced that without proof of demand, a conviction under the cannot stand.
Court's Observations: A Gap in the Evidence
In a critical passage, Justice Bhuyan, writing for the bench, observed:
"None of the witnesses have seen the accused demanding bribe or PW-1 handing over the bribe money to the accused. There is no evidence in this regard. It is only the of PW-1."
The bench further noted the "inconsistencies galore" in the trap narrative and the troubling fact that independent witnesses had signed documents under police direction. The prosecution's failure to prove as a was fatal.
The Verdict: Acquittal and Name Cleared
The
allowed the appeal, setting aside the
conviction by the Special Judge and the
judgment of the
. The Court declared that
"the charge framed against the appellant Ajit Kumar under
could not be proved."
Accordingly, Ajit Kumar stands cleared of all charges.
The decision reaffirms a fundamental tenet of anti-corruption law: demand is the bedrock of every bribery offence . Mere recovery of marked currency, regardless of chemical tests or trap procedures, cannot substitute for direct, credible evidence that a public servant actually solicited—and knowingly accepted—a bribe. For Kumar, a man who had already paid his dues to society, this judgment restores what the system could not take away: his name.
