Corruption Conviction Quashed as Jaipur High Court Finds No Proof of Bribe Demand or Recovery
Corruption Conviction Quashed as Jaipur High Court Finds No Proof of Bribe Demand or Recovery In a detailed and reasoned judgment, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, while deciding S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1498/2023, examined the legality of the conviction recorded by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, against three officials of the Railway Protection Force. The appeal arose out of a judgment dated 29.05.2023 whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine. The prosecution case was founded on allegations that the appellants demanded and accepted a bribe of ₹5,000 for deleting the complainant’s name from a criminal case registered under the Railways Act. According to the complaint, an initial amount of ₹2,000 was allegedly paid, and a trap was later laid for the remaining ₹3,000, during which one of the appellants was claimed to have been caught red-handed. The High Court undertook a meticulous reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, including the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, trap proceedings, forensic reports, and sanction orders. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that, for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the three essential ingredients, namely a clear and specific demand of illegal gratification, acceptance or recovery of the bribe amount, and pendency of work with the accused. On an exhaustive scrutiny of the record, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish these foundational requirements. The alleged demand on the initial date was unsupported by any independent evidence, was not corroborated by contemporaneous recordings, and was contradicted by official duty records showing that one of the appellants was not even present at the place of occurrence. With regard to the trap proceedings, the Court noted that the currency notes were not recovered from the conscious possession of the accused and were instead found scattered on the floor. The phenolphthalein test did not yield the expected result, and several prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that the accused had not accepted the money. The presence of independent witnesses, including the Railway Magistrate, at the spot was acknowledged, yet none were examined by the prosecution, which further weakened the case. The High Court also examined the voice recordings and their transcriptions relied upon by the prosecution and found that they did not disclose any explicit or unequivocal demand for bribe. On the contrary, the conversations reflected vague and ambiguous exchanges, insufficient in law to constitute a demand. The Court emphasised that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for attracting the offences under the Act and cannot be inferred from conjectures or incomplete conversations. Serious infirmities were also found in the grant of prosecution sanction. The sanction orders were found to be stereotyped, mechanically issued, and lacking any indication of proper application of mind to the distinct role attributed to each accused. The evidence showed that the alleged work of the complainant was not pending with the appellants at the relevant time, as the file had already been forwarded for approval prior to the trap. In view of these cumulative deficiencies, the High Court concluded that the findings recorded by the trial court were unsustainable and based on misappreciation of evidence. Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2023, and acquitted all the appellants of the offences alleged against them