No proof of bribe demand, HC acquits two public servants

The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted two public servants convicted in a bribery case, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of demand for illegal gratification and could not rely on recorded conversations without complying with mandatory requirements for electronic evidence.Justice Rajani Dubey allowed a criminal appeal and set aside the September 8, 2017 judgement of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bemetara, which had convicted Assistant Director (Education) Anil Markande and clerk Ramesh Kumar Chouhan under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.The case stemmed from an Anti-Corruption Bureau trap conducted in October 2010 after allegations that the accused demanded Rs 5,000 to release the withheld salary of the complainant’s wife, a Shiksha Karmi.

During the trap, Rs 5,000 in tainted currency notes was recovered from Markande’s pocket.The High Court, however, identified multiple deficiencies in the prosecution case. It noted that the prosecution’s reliance on voice recordings to establish demand was undermined by the complainant’s admission that the voice recorder remained in his custody at his residence from October 5 to October 10, 2010, before being handed to the ACB.

The court recorded that the prosecution did not obtain voice samples of the accused or the complainant and did not conduct any expert examination to authenticate the voices.

It also noted that the transcript was prepared with the complainant’s assistance, while witnesses stated the recordings contained multiple voices and were not clearly audible.In these circumstances, the court held that the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out and observed that the prosecution failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the electronic record.

The court further found that the prosecution could not establish the presence of co-accused Ramesh Chouhan during the alleged transaction and that no recovery was made from him.The court also noted that both the complainant and his wife admitted receiving the salary cheque on October 5, 2010, prior to the trap proceedings. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction unless prior demand for illegal gratification is proved beyond reasonable doubt.The judgement described the complainant’s conduct as “highly suspicious,” referring to the sequence of complaints and consent: the first complaint was filed on October 4, 2010, the wife’s consent was furnished on October 8, and a second complaint followed on October 11. The court also noted that another individual mentioned in the recorded conversation was neither cited nor examined as a prosecution witness.Holding that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of demand, acceptance and recovery required under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the High Court ruled that, without a Section 65B certificate, voice samples and an FSL report, the electronic evidence could not be relied upon. It found the trial court’s appreciation of material inconsistencies to be flawed, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, and acquitted them of all charges.