Legal News & Court Updates.

Supreme Court Acquits Forest Officer in Bribery Case, Cites Lack of Credible Evidence

Background

The case involved a Forest Section Officer, referred to as AO1 (Accused Officer 1), who was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹5,000 from a complainant, Mukka Ramesh (PW-1). The prosecution alleged that AO1 and a co-accused, AO2 (Accused Officer 2), had threatened PW-1 with a case for the illegal possession of teakwood in his saw-mill and demanded a monthly bribe (mamool) of ₹5,000 to refrain from taking any further action.

Arguments

The defense counsel, Shri Dama Sheshadri Naidu , argued that the entire prosecution case was false and fabricated. He contended that the prosecution failed to provide any convincing evidence to prove the demand of bribe by AO1. The counsel also highlighted that the prosecution did not make any effort to get the telephonic conversation between AO1 and PW-1 recorded or to place a recording device on PW-1 during the trap proceedings to verify the factum of demand of bribe.

The prosecution, represented by the learned standing counsel, argued that AO1 had first imposed an unwarranted fine of ₹50,000 on PW-1's saw-mill and then demanded a monthly bribe of ₹5,000, threatening to harm his business.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence, found that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges against AO1 by leading evidence that could be termed "unimpeachable." The court noted several discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution's case:

1. The Trap Laying Officer (DySP PW-10) did not make any effort to verify the allegation of demand of bribe leveled against AO1 by PW-1 in the complaint.
2. The call detail records (CDRs) contradicted the prosecution's claim that AO1 had regularly called PW-1 to demand the bribe.
3. The court found it suspicious that M. Ashok , who had paid the ₹50,000 compounding fee, was associated as a panch witness in the trap proceedings, raising doubts about the orchestration of the entire case.
4. The court also noted that PW-1 had admitted to picking up AO1's rexine bag from the coffee shop and handing it over to him, which provided an opportunity for PW-1 to plant the tainted currency notes in the bag.

Decision

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe against AO1 by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence. The court also found that the allegation of acceptance of bribe by AO1 was primarily based on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, which was not corroborated by independent witnesses.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and acquitted AO1 of the charges. The court observed that the prosecution case was "full of embellishments contradicting and doubting" and that it would not be safe to convict AO1 for demanding and accepting the bribe money from PW-1.