Man charged for 1,000 bribe 28 years ago gets HC relief

Nagpur: Nearly 28 years after he was charged for taking Rs1,000 bribe, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court acquitted a clerk, as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt.
Petitioner Gopal Gulhane, working as a senior clerk in office of deputy director of vocational education and training, was convicted by Amravati court under the ‘Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’ in 2003.

While acquitting the accused, Justice Murlidhar Chandekar said that the prosecution had failed to provide any cogent evidence that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe. He said the theory of preponderance of probability is not applicable in this case.

“In criminal law, the burden is on prosecution to prove accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence of complainant itself shows that he himself had given the amount to the accused. Even the witness stated that the complainant himself put the money in accused’s pocket. All this evidence clearly shows that the prosecution failed to prove accused’s guilt,” the judge said while accepting the petitioner’s plea of innocence.

Gulhane had approached the high court in 2003 after his conviction in 1991. He was always on bail.

Complainant Ulhas Khedkar was appointed as instructor of electrical maintenance in Prabodhan Junior College, Daryapur, in 1984, and was later promoted as lecturer. As the college was run by a private management, the deputy director’s approval was needed to get the salary.

Khedkar received salary regularly till September 1990, but didn't get it in the subsequent months. He then visited the director’s office where he met the accused who allegedly ignored his repeated requests to clear his dues.

After some persuasion, the accused told the complainant that there were some discrepancies in his proposal and he wouldn’t get any salary. Gulhane however assured him to clear his dues along with two other colleagues if they pay him Rs1,000 each. He said some amount would be paid to the director.

As Khedkar was not ready to pay a bribe, he lodged a complaint with Amravati Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The ACB sleuths then laid a trap on December 7, 1990, when the accused was caught while allegedly accepting bribe of Rs1,000. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed and he was convicted by the sessions court under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act.

The 51-year-old petitioner then challenged his conviction in HC contending that the bribe amount was forcibly put in his pocket by an unknown person when he was at a tea stall. Even the witness, who was present during the ACB’s trap, endorsed his claims stating that when he reached there he saw bribe amount was lying on the tar road.

“This itself shows that as soon as the accused noticed the forced thrusting of bribe amount, he had thrown the notes on the road. Evidence also proves that there was no demand by the accused,” justice Giratkar noted.

WHAT HC SAID

* Prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence that accused accepted bribe

* Theory of preponderance of probability will not be applicable in this case

* In criminal law, the burden is on prosecution to prove accused’s guilt

* Complainant’s evidence shows that he himself given amount to accused

* Witness confirmed complainant himself put amount in accused’s pocket