The court acquits appellants in a bribery case citing lack of proof for demand and improper handling of electronic evidence.
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey, has overturned the conviction and sentencing of Anil Markende and Ramesh Kumar Chouhan in a bribery case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants, previously sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) in Bemetara, were acquitted due to lack of concrete evidence regarding the demand for illegal gratification.
The case originated when Shyam Kumar Tiwari, the complainant, alleged that his wife's salary was withheld and a bribe of Rs. 5,000 was demanded for its release. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) set up a trap, and marked currency notes were recovered from appellant Anil Markende. However, the High Court found the evidence presented by the prosecution insufficient to establish a clear demand for the bribe.
Central to the court's decision was the prosecution's failure to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to validate the electronic evidence, including recorded conversations. Furthermore, the integrity of the audio recordings was questioned as they were in the complainant's custody for several days before being submitted, and no voice samples were taken for verification.
Justice Dubey emphasized that the mere recovery of tainted money does not suffice for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act without unequivocal proof of demand. The court noted discrepancies in witness testimonies and procedural lapses, which led to granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt.
The judgment highlights the critical need for rigorous adherence to legal protocols in corruption cases, particularly concerning the admissibility and handling of electronic evidence.
Bottom line:-
Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for convicting the accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Act. Mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand does not constitute the offense.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65B; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 481
Anil Markende v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2928457
