News Updates

Emergency Quota Of Berths In Trains: MP HC Acquits Railway Clerk Of Bribery Charges [Read Judgment]

Live Law News Network
19 July 2017 8:02 AM GMT
Emergency Quota Of Berths In Trains: MP HC Acquits Railway Clerk Of Bribery Charges [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has acquitted a railway clerk from corruption charges pertaining to allotment of emergency quota of berths in AC class in a train.

The high court took note of the fact that in the cross-examination, the complainant stated that he had never disclosed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) about the appellant railway clerk raising any demand of illegal gratification, but the CBI officer insisted to add his name (the appellant) in the complaint.

The complainant, in his statement, told the complaint was made to the CBI against the assistant commercial manager of West Central Railway, who demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000 to allot berth under emergency quota in AC class on his ticket.

On 23.12.2007, the CBI laid a trap and seized one note of Rs. 1,000 from a diary kept on a table of the appellant, who worked in the office of assistant commercial manager of West Central Railway at Jabalpur, and likewise, the appellant was made accused.

A division bench of Justice SK Gangele and Justice Anurag Shrivastava said: “In the present case, the complainant in his examination in chief has categorically denied the fact that the appellant has made any demand of illegal gratification for allotment of berth and accepted it. He has also denied making a complaint against appellant.”

On examining the records, the court found the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of appellant-accused for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court said: “We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved.”

Read the Judgment Here

Next Story