21 years after Rs 200 bribe conviction, Punjab and Haryana High Court acquits clerk

“The mere recovery of the currency notes, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient to sustain the conviction when the evidence regarding the essential ingredient of demand is found to be doubtful,” the September 8 order read.

Rs 200 bribe case of 2001

The complainant claimed that he had applied for a loan for the purchase of buffaloes from the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation in 2000 but received no intimation about the loan till February 2001. He later met the accused while he was posted as a clerk in the same office, but did not receive a satisfactory reply.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth held that the lack of details about when and how the bribe was demanded was significant.

When the complainant went to the State Bank of Patiala to enquire about the loan, the bank official asked him to furnish the dispatch number of his loan application from the corporation. After about 15-20 days, he again went to the office where the accused was posted to ask for the dispatch number. It was alleged that the accused demanded Rs 200 as a bribe for furnishing the dispatch number.

The complainant later went to the Vigilance Bureau, which set up a trap to catch the clerk red-handed. During the trap proceedings, the man allegedly demanded and accepted Rs 200, comprising two currency notes of Rs 100 each. The notes were recovered from the left pocket of his trousers.

The trial court, in 2005, found the man guilty and awarded him a sentence of two years along with a fine of Rs 2,000. Aggrieved, he challenged the order before the high court.

‘Enough reason to harbour grudge’

The accused, represented by Senior Advocate J S Toor, argued that the complainant’s statement carries an element of motive, as his wife’s uncle had earlier availed a loan and recovery proceedings were conducted at his house by the accused, along with other officials.

The counsel added that the complainant had enough reason to harbour a grudge against the accused. It was further submitted that no official work relating to the loan was pending with the man, and there was no occasion for him to demand or accept Rs 200.

On the contrary, Deputy Advocate General Neeraj Madaan submitted that the complainant has proved the demand of Rs 200 for furnishing the dispatch number of the loan case. He added that there is sufficient evidence establishing the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribery money.

No date, time disclosed: HC

The court noted the recovery proceedings initiated against the uncle of the complainant’s wife, who was a loanee of the corporation where the accused was posted. It was also found that the father of one of the witnesses of the said vigilance trap was also a loan defaulter and the accused had visited him along with the concerned revenue official for recovery of the loan amount.

It held that in these circumstances, the possibility of the complainant “harbouring a grudge” against the accused cannot be completely ruled out. “Similarly, the relationship of the complainant with (the person) against whom the (accused) had earlier conducted recovery proceedings, assumes significance while appreciating the testimony of the complainant,” it stated.

It was found that the complainant failed to disclose any specific date or time when the accused allegedly demanded Rs 200 from him and the court held that the lack of specific details about when and how the initial demand was made was significant.

The court also observed that his loan case had already been forwarded to the State Bank of Patiala, and there was no pending work relating to the loan case that required the accused to furnish the dispatch number to the complainant. Accordingly, it set aside the trial court’s conviction and sentence and acquitted the man.