Supreme Court Acquits Jharkhand Education Department Assistant in Bribery Trap Case
The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of Ajit Kumar, an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella, Jharkhand, in a corruption trap case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed Kumar’s appeal against the Jharkhand High Court’s 2022 judgment, which had affirmed his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant had been sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 on each count by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
The case arose from a complaint by a government school orderly, Durgapad Singh Munda, who alleged that Kumar had demanded Rs. 5,000 to facilitate release of his salary. A vigilance trap was laid on 20 May 2010. The prosecution claimed that the complainant handed over the tainted money to the accused at his residence, after which the cash was recovered and a phenolphthalein test on the accused’s hands turned pink.
However, the Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution story. The Court noted that none of the witnesses had actually seen Kumar demanding the bribe or receiving the money. The alleged payment, according to the evidence, took place inside the accused’s residence and outside the presence of the trap team. Witnesses differed on whether the accused was caught in his office or at home, and whether the money was recovered from under a pillow or elsewhere. Some witnesses also admitted they had signed seizure papers on the direction of vigilance officials and had not personally seen the recovery.
Relying on settled law, the Court reiterated that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. Citing earlier rulings including P. Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta, Aman Bhatia, and Jaswinder Singh, the Bench held that mere recovery of tainted currency or a positive phenolphthalein test cannot replace proof of demand and voluntary acceptance.
The Court observed that in the present case, the prosecution had failed to establish demand and acceptance as a fact in issue. As a result, the conviction could not stand. The Court set aside both the trial court and High Court judgments and acquitted Ajit Kumar of all charges.
Notably, the Court entertained the appeal even though the appellant had already served the sentence and paid the fine, since he sought to clear his name.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Mere recovery of tainted money and positive phenolphthalein test are not sufficient to sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act unless demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved beyond reasonable doubt - Where alleged payment of bribe took place outside the presence of trap team and there was no corroboration of complainant's version, conviction was set aside.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2990897
