The Court upheld the conviction of a former bank manager for demanding and accepting a bribe, while reducing the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year considering the prolonged pendency of the trial and appeal.

The Court was hearing an appeal directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

The appeal was heard by Justice Sanjay Dhar, who observed,

“The corroboration required, when it is not considered safe to dispense with it, have been clearly explained and it is merely necessary to reiterate that corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient even though it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime.”

Background

As per the prosecution case, the complainant had applied for and obtained sanction of a loan of Rs. 1.00 lakh from a rural bank and had received the first instalment of Rs. 35,000. For the release of the second instalment of Rs. 65,000, the appellant, who was posted as Manager of the bank, demanded Rs. 7,000 as illegal gratification.

After persuasion, the appellant agreed to release the loan instalment if an amount of Rs. 5,000 was paid to him. The complainant lodged a written complaint before the Vigilance Organization, on the basis of which an FIR was registered and a trap was laid.

The trap team, comprising officers of the Vigilance Organization and two independent witnesses, proceeded to the complainant's shop. The complainant produced Rs. 5,000, comprising six currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination and twenty currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination.

After the pre-trap demonstration, the complainant, along with the trap team, proceeded to the market. At about 1605 hours, the appellant reached the shop, and after taking a cold drink, demanded the bribe money from the complainant, who handed over the amount to the appellant. The shadow witness gave the pre-fixed signal, and the trap team gathered outside the shop.

The trap laying officer introduced himself to the appellant, who tried to throw away the accepted bribe money from the back pocket of his pant. However, he was caught hold of by the members of the trap team. A solution of sodium carbonate was prepared, and the appellant was made to wash his hands in the said solution, which turned pink.

Similarly, the right-side back pocket of the pant worn by the appellant was also washed with the solution, and its colour also turned pink. The bribe money was recovered from the back pocket of the pant worn by him.

The trial court, after analysing the evidence, concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved that the trap was genuinely laid on the basis of the written complaint, and that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe money. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, which led to the filing of the appeal.

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the prosecution had not established the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification. It was contended that the shadow witness had turned hostile, and therefore, no conviction could have been recorded on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.

It was further contended that the complainant had not installed the machinery, which was a precondition for the release of the second instalment, and when the appellant refused to release the instalment, he lodged a false complaint against him.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that while the shadow witness initially supported the prosecution case, he later stated that the bribe money was lying on the ground and was picked up by another witness. He was declared hostile. However, the Court noted,

“Even the hostile witness, PW Madan Singh, has clearly stated that the demand emanated from the appellant, pursuant to which the tainted money was handed over by the complainant to the appellant.”

The Court further noted that the other members of the trap team consistently stated that when the shadow witness conducted the search of the right-side back pocket of the pant worn by the appellant, the appellant pushed him, as a result of which the currency notes fell down on the ground. The independent witness corroborated this version.

The Court held that the statement of the shadow witness corroborated the statement of the complainant in its material particulars, except to the extent of the recovery of the tainted money, which was corroborated by all the members of the trap team.

The Court held,

“From these proved facts, a presumption can be drawn that the appellant had willingly received the currency notes. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial court that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant had demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes, which were recovered from his possession, on the basis of which the presumption under Section 4 of the J&K P.C. Act has to follow, appears to be well-founded.”

The Court rejected the defence argument that there was no occasion for the appellant to visit the complainant's shop, holding that the visit itself led to the inference that he had gone there to collect the bribe money. The Court noted that the appellant had undergone trial for about six years, and the appeal had remained pending before the Court for nine years. The Court held,

“However, having regard to the fact that the appellant has undergone trial for about six years and that the present appeal has remained pending before this Court for the last nine years, the quantum of sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial court deserves to be reduced.”

Accordingly the Court upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court. However, considering the prolonged pendency of the trial and the appeal, the Court modified the order of sentence and reduced the imprisonment from two years to one year for each of the offences. The appellant was directed to surrender before the trial court within one month to serve the sentence.