Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Patna has set aside the acquittal of a public official accused of corruption, convicting the respondent under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case, which involved allegations of bribery against a Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), was revisited following directions from the Supreme Court, which held that the delay in filing the government’s appeal should have been condoned. The High Court, upon detailed scrutiny of the evidence, has now found the respondent guilty, overturning the earlier acquittal by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Padmavati Kumari on July 15, 2014, against the accused, Aruna Kumari, who served as a CDPO in Goh Block, Aurangabad district. The complainant alleged that the accused had demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000 in exchange for not taking adverse action against her Anganwadi Centre. The demand was allegedly communicated through the accused’s driver.

On receiving the complaint, the Economic Offences Unit (EOU) assigned Inspector Rajesh Narayan Verma to verify the allegations. The verification report, submitted on July 17, 2014, confirmed that the accused had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000. Based on this, the EOU organized a trap operation for July 18, 2014, under the supervision of a senior police official.

The trap team provided the complainant with Rs. 10,000 treated with phenolphthalein powder. At approximately 1:15 PM, the complainant entered the office of the accused and handed over the marked currency. Soon after, the trap team entered and conducted a phenolphthalein test, which confirmed the presence of the chemical on the accused’s hands and the purse where she had kept the money. The seized money and related documents were subsequently sent for forensic examination.

During trial before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, the prosecution presented 12 witnesses, including the trap team members, the complainant, and forensic experts. Documentary evidence, such as the pre-trap and post-trap memoranda, forensic reports, and recorded witness statements, were also submitted. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the complainant turning hostile, and the absence of independent verification of demand and acceptance.

The High Court examined the evidence afresh and found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The Court observed that the trial court had erroneously disregarded key pieces of evidence.

The judgment stated: “The prosecution by adducing adequate evidence has proved the pre-trap and post-trap memo, recovery of bribe money from the purse of the accused, and the forensic report, which proves that the accused accepted money by her hand and had kept the same inside a black-coloured purse.”

The High Court also examined the procedural lapses cited by the trial court. The defense had argued that the complainant turning hostile and stating that she only provided Rs. 7,000 instead of Rs. 10,000 created doubts. The High Court, however, noted that minor discrepancies in the exact amount do not negate the fact that the accused was caught red-handed accepting money. The presence of phenolphthalein powder on her hands and purse further corroborated the prosecution’s case.

Furthermore, the defense argued that the non-production of the seized money in court due to its destruction by rodents in the police Malkhana should render the prosecution case unreliable. The High Court held that the recorded Malkhana register and testimonies of the officers who conducted the seizure were sufficient to establish the chain of custody.

The High Court also addressed the trial court’s reliance on the complainant’s inconsistent statements. While the complainant initially provided details about the bribery demand, she later retracted key aspects during the trial. However, the High Court noted that the statements made by other witnesses, particularly P.W. 3, an independent inspector who verified the demand, provided sufficient corroboration.

The Court referred to precedent in Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that courts must presume illegal gratification if acceptance is proven unless the accused provides a credible rebuttal. The accused failed to provide any explanation for possessing the marked currency, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.

The defense also cited P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI & Anr., arguing that when departmental proceedings exonerate an accused, criminal proceedings should not continue. The High Court, however, distinguished these cases by stating that the departmental proceedings had not conclusively ruled on the bribery charge and that the evidence presented in court was independent of any findings in administrative inquiries.

The High Court concluded that the trial court erred in ignoring crucial evidence and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The acquittal was accordingly set aside, and the accused is convicted as under:

• For the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of three years’ imprisonment, extendable up to seven years, along with a fine.

• For the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, which carries a minimum sentence of four years, extendable up to ten years, along with a fine.

Case Title: The Economic Offences Unit through the Superintendent of Police, EOU, Patna, Bihar v. Aruna Kumari
Case Number: Govt. Appeal (SJ) No. 18 of 2019
Bench: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

[Read/Download order]