“Any money, which is other than a legal charge demanded by any public servant for doing his lawful duty, shall amount to the demand of a bribe or illegal gratification furnishing motive or reward for doing such official work. The appellant (man) cannot escape from his liability merely because he has used the word ‘extra ’, not the word “bribe ” directly,” the September 10 order read.
Demanded Rs 100 as additional charge
The complainant claimed that on April 27, 1995, he approached the then parcel clerk of Hatia Railway Station to book his motorcycle for Samastipur, Bihar, through Maurya Express. It was further alleged that the said clerk urged the complainant to pay Rs 203 as booking charges and to fill up the form. Apart from the booking charges, the clerk allegedly also demanded Rs 100 as an additional charge.
The complainant claimed that when he asked the clerk why he had demanded an amount in excess of the actual booking charges, he replied that unless Rs 100 as an additional charge was paid, he would not book the motorcycle. Aggrieved, the complainant reported the matter to the CBI, leading to an FIR.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava noted that it was the first offence of the man and he has also been dismissed from his service.
The CBI conducted the trap against the accused and caught him red-handed while demanding and accepting Rs 100 as a bribe, following which he was arrested. The trial court, in its May 28, 2004 order, sentenced him to jail and fined him a total of Rs 10,000.
Aggrieved by this order, the man moved high court with this appeal.
Story continues below this ad
Arguments
The man was represented by advocate Sameer Saurabh, who submitted that his client is 75 years old and suffering from several ailments; the sentence may be reduced to the minimum sentence prescribed for the charges of bribery. He argued that more than three decades have passed since the initiation of this case and the man has sustained the prolonged ordeal of trial. He also added that the sentence awarded to him is disproportionate to his guilt.
Representing the CBI, Additional Solicitor General of India Prashant Pallav argued that the status of the man as a public servant is an admitted fact and the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe, as well as its recovery, through reliable evidence placed on record.
‘Appeal pending for two decades’
The court took into consideration that the occurrence had taken place in 1995, and the case was decided by the trial court in 2004, nine years later, while the appeal was also pending for more than two decades.
However, the court found that the “foundational” facts regarding the demand of the bribe and its acceptance and recovery from the accused had been proved beyond doubt.
Story continues below this ad
It also noted that the man has now attained the age of 75+ and is suffering from age-related illness. “It was the first offence of the appellant, and he has also been dismissed from his service. Therefore, the minimum sentence prescribed for the offences charged against the appellant would meet the ends of justice in this particular case,” it noted.
The court, accordingly, reduced his sentence to one year without interfering with the fine amount, which was already deposited by the man.
The court held that the man should surrender before the trial court within two months to “suffer” the sentence awarded to him.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava noted that it was the first offence of the man and he has also been dismissed from his service.