'Not only unclear, but debatable': Bombay HC quashes conviction of man in bribery case

This picture has been used for representational purpose

Quashing a 2016 conviction of a Thane court peon in a Rs 300 bribery case, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday stated that "mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient."

While hearing peon Raju Kakphale's plea against his conviction - one-year imprisonment and Rs 2,000 fine for criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Justice S K Shinde said, "Mere receipt of the amount by accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt in absence of any evidence of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the amount as illegal gratification."

"Illegal gratification is sine-qua-non (absolutely essential) for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988," the court said.

An illegal gratification is money or any reward taken that is beyond legal remuneration for official acts by a public servant.

The Bombay HC found the prosecution case "not only unclear, but debatable". The court observed that the complainant was a man "familiar with court procedure" having been acquitted in a 2008 case, an accused in a 2011 case, and a complainant in yet another case.

According to a report in the Times of India, the complainant was acquitted by a Thane judicial magistrate first-class on January 31, 2008. Later, he applied and paid for a certified copy of the judgment the same day and was told that he would receive it on February 4. However, he said, the peon attached to a judicial magistrate demanded Rs 2,000 for urgent delivery.

The complainant further claimed that on February 1, he paid Rs 300 to Kakphale as he "needed the copies urgently to file for proceedings in the high court". The peon "gave" him his phone number and asked him to contact on February 2. Following this, the complainant approached Thane's anti-corruption bureau, which laid a trap with the Thane district judge's permission.

With the help of a digital voice recorder in his shirt pocket, a pancha, and the raiding team, the complainant met Kakphale on February 2 and gave him Rs 800 in anthracene-coated currency, which the ACB team recovered.

Kakphale's counsel Satyavrat Joshi said that his client was attached to a courtroom, and not in the 'certified copy section'. He further said that hence assuming, without admitting, his client had received any money, it could not have been for his official duties.

Furthermore, Joshi also questioned pancha's evidence which said that the peon had a photocopy of the judgment during the trap. The HC too found it "improbable" since the steno had to type the judgment on February 3. The HC said assuming his client had the photocopy, why had the investigating team not confiscated and produced it during the trial.

"It is, therefore, unclear why he would approach the accused when the certified copy section was to give him a copy on February 4," the court stated.

Although additional public prosecutor Veera Shinde said the taped conversation was proof of the 'palm-greasing', the HC discarded the "secondary electronic evidence" as inadmissible since the prosecution had not submitted its authenticity certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

Police said that the original recording was erased after being transferred to a disc, but the officer did not depose.