Jharkhand HC Cuts Sentence in 1993 ₹300 Bribe Case, Cites Three Decades of Trial Agony [Read Judgment]

Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed on merits a criminal appeal filed by a former Fund Clerk of Basudeopur Colliery, BCCL, Dhanbad, convicted of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.300 for processing an ex-employee's provident fund arrear claim, while modifying his sentence and reducing it to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him during trial.

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was hearing a criminal appeal, preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence whereby the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with a consolidated fine of Rs.1,000, the sentences to run concurrently.

As per the prosecution case, the complainant, an ex-minor loader of the colliery, had approached the C.B.I. alleging that the appellant, working as Fund Clerk, was demanding Rs.300 for forwarding his CMPF arrear claim to the concerned office. After the allegation was verified, a trap was laid, during which the appellant allegedly accepted the tainted currency notes from the complainant in the presence of a shadow witness and kept the same in the drawer of his office table. On being confronted by the trap team, the money was recovered from the drawer, the appellant's hand-wash turned pink on chemical testing, and he was arrested and subsequently chargesheeted and convicted by the trial court.

Assailing the conviction, senior counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution witnesses had given mutually contradictory and inconsistent statements which struck at the very root of the case, that the sanctioning authority had not been examined, that none of the shadow witnesses had actually overheard the demand or seen the alleged transaction, and that the recovery of money from a table drawer could not amount to recovery from the conscious possession of the appellant. It was alternatively urged that the sentence was disproportionate, given that the alleged demand was only Rs.300, the occurrence dated back to 1993, and the appellant had already remained in custody for over a month and deposited a total of Rs.7,000 towards fine and bail conditions.

Opposing the appeal, counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that the trial court had correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, that all the prosecution witnesses had consistently deposed regarding the demand of Rs.300 by the appellant, and that the appellant had failed to offer any explanation to rebut the statutory presumption of guilt raised under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On a review of the testimony of the eight prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence, the court found that the contradictions highlighted by the defence were not substantive enough to affect the core of the prosecution case, and that the evidence had categorically established demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the appellant for processing the complainant's PF arrear claim. The court accordingly held that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the appellant and found no merit in the challenge to the conviction.

On the question of sentence, however, the court took note that the demand involved was a modest sum of Rs.300, that the occurrence was over three decades old, that the appellant had no previous criminal antecedents, and that he had already undergone about a month in custody besides depositing Rs.7,000 in total towards fine and bail conditions. Holding that the appellant had thereby sufficiently been punished for his guilt, the court reduced the substantive sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone, while retaining the fine amounts already deposited.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed on merits with modification of the sentence, and the appellant, being on bail, was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds along with the sureties.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, and Ms. Lina Shakti, Advocate.

For the Respondent C.B.I.: Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate.

Case Title: Samir Kumar Choudhary vs. The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I., Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 314 of 2005

[Read Judgment]