Rs.100 Bribe Amount Too Small To Prosecute Accused Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Bombay High Court

Rs. 100 is a very trivial amount to pursue prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Bombay High Court recently observed.

Justice Jitendra Jain upheld the acquittal of a medical officer accused of accepting a Rs. 100 bribe in 2007 observing –

“In the instant case, the allegation is acceptance of bribe of Rs.100/- in the year 2007. The amount appears to be too small in the year 2007 and moreso, in the year 2023 when the appeal is being heard against the acquittal. Therefore, assuming that the appellant-complainant is able to prove the charges, (although, I have already held that they have failed to prove the charges), in my view after considering quantum at the relevant time this could be a fit case to be treated as a trivial matter to uphold the acquittal order”, said the court.

The court also held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against Dr. Anil Kacharu Shinde, the 44-year-old medical officer.

Shinde was charged under Sections 7 (public servant taking illegal gratification), 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by public servant), and 13(2) (punishment from criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The case dates back to February 12, 2007, when one Laxman Pingale filed a complaint against his nephew, stating that the nephew assaulted and injured him. The police issued a requisition letter for Pingale to get medically checked at Gramin Rugnalaya Paud. Shinde treated Pingale, who then requested a medical certificate for the police station.

Pingale alleged that Shinde demanded a bribe of Rs. 100 to issue the certificate. Subsequently, Pingale filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which led to a trap operation on February 20, 2007. In this operation, Shinde was caught and charged with demanding a bribe.

The Special Judge under the PC Act acquitted Shinde. Thus, the prosecution filed the present appeal against acquittal.

The court noted that the sanction for prosecuting Shinde had been granted by an Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra. However, according to Section 19(1)(b) and (c) of the PC Act, such sanctions should be granted by the authority who is competent to remove the public servant which, in this case, was the Principal Secretary.

Further, the Under Secretary in his cross examination admitted that he did not peruse the papers of the case before granting the sanction. Thus, the sanction granted is also without application of mind and mechanical. Therefore, the court found the sanction invalid.

The court also observed that Shinde was present at the hospital on February 15, 2007, when the first trap operation was planned. This contradicted the prosecution's claim that he was on leave on that day.

The court noted that medical certificates are typically handed over to the police as per the rules. As the certificate for Pingale was already with the police on February 13, 2007, the court questioned the allegation that Shinde had demanded a bribe for it.

The court found inconsistencies in the evidence provided by witnesses, including the complainant and a panch witness. One panch witness admitted to signing the panchnama without being present during the trap operation, which raised doubts about the veracity of the testimony.

“there are lot of inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and, therefore, the order of acquittal does not require any interference by this Court”, the court concluded.

Section 20(3) of the PC Act provides that if gratification is trivial, no interference of corruption may be drawn. Thus, in case of a trivial matter, the court may refuse to draw the presumption of corruption, the court said.

The court referred to the case of Bhagwan Jathya Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra in which the HC held that in case of trivial matter, the PC Act should not be invoked but a departmental proceeding may be initiated. In the present case, the court considered the alleged bribe amount of Rs. 100 in 2007 as trivial.

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against Shinde beyond a reasonable doubt and upheld his acquittal him.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2012

Case Title – State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Anil Kacharu Shinde