Justice after death: Widow wins 20-year legal battle as Chhattisgarh High Court overturns husband’s bribery conviction

‘No concrete proof of bribe acceptance’

• Scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses makes it clear that in the entire case, there is no concrete proof of the demand for a bribe by the accused.
• The analysis of the statements of all witnesses makes it clear that there is no proof of any demand in this case, and the recovery of tainted notes was made from the junk room.
• The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredient of the demand for a bribe in the absence of reliable proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
• According to the complainant, he had filed a Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) loan application, which forms the very basis of the alleged demand, but it is surprising to note that the original CPF loan application has not been produced, and only a photocopy has been brought on record.
• Therefore, the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed are hereby set aside.
• Since the instant appeal was prosecuted by the legal representative on account of the death of the accused, after allowing the appeal, no direction is required for the legal representative to furnish a personal bond.
• The special court record, along with a copy of this judgment, be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

‘CBI trap to catch accused’

• The prosecution’s story is that the complainant, Michael Masih, was posted as an electrical fitter grade IV at Korea Colliery.
• He had submitted an application seeking the withdrawal of an advance amount of Rs 2.5 lakh from his provident fund account.
• At the relevant time, the accused, J N Mukherjee (since deceased), was posted as personal manager.
• The application of the complainant for the sanction of a provident fund advance was required to be processed and approved through the office of the accused.
• It was alleged that the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs 5,000 from the complainant for facilitating and approving the said advance application.
• Being aggrieved by the demand for a bribe, the complainant approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and lodged a complaint.
• Subsequently, the CBI organised a trap to apprehend the accused while accepting the bribe amount.

• On February 27, 2004, the accused allegedly demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs 5,000 from the complainant in the presence of an independent witness.
• Immediately thereafter, the CBI trap team allegedly apprehended the accused red-handed and recovered the bribe amount from his possession.
• After completion of the usual investigation, the CBI obtained prior sanction for prosecuting the accused from the competent authority, namely the chairman of Coal India Limited, being the disciplinary authority of the accused, and thereafter filed a chargesheet before the special court.
• The trial court later convicted and sentenced the accused

‘Prosecution failed to prove case’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Leekesh Kumar argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
• It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the alleged demand of Rs 5,000 by way of illegal gratification.
• Kumar further contended that the prosecution has failed to properly obtain and prove the valid sanction for prosecution of the accused as required under law, thereby vitiating the entire trial.
• It was argued that the complainant was eager to get his work done and himself offered the money, which was refused by the accused.

Special court’s judgment ‘well-reasoned’

• On the contrary, representing the CBI, advocate Vaibhav Goverdhan submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the special court is well-reasoned, legal and based upon proper appreciation of evidence placed on record.
• The evidence of the complainant is duly corroborated by the independent witness present at the time of the trap proceedings as well as by the members of the trap team.
• It is further submitted that the acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused stands conclusively established.
• The accused was apprehended red-handed immediately after accepting the tainted currency notes, he claimed.
• The phenolphthalein test conducted during the trap proceedings yielded positive results, thereby scientifically corroborating the prosecution’s case regarding the handling of the tainted currency notes by the accused.
• It is argued that the defence plea that the complainant voluntarily offered money, which was refused by the accused, is an afterthought and is not supported by any credible evidence.