Complaint Lodged Directly Before CBI Shows Misuse Of Power & Nepotism: Calcutta HC Sets Aside Conviction Of Govt Employee Accused Of Demanding ₹300 Bribe

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a conviction under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, against the appellant, who was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500, for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 300 in the year 1997.

The appellant, who was working as a dealing assistant at the Kalyani Vidhan Park Sub-Office was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs 300 for collecting the Monthly Investment Scheme (MIS) deposit amount from the complainant, whose deceased father and mother had maintained an MIS account at the said post office.

In setting aside the conviction, a single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:

The manner in which the complaint was lodged directly before the CBI officials and a trap being laid to indict the appellant was a glaring example of misuse of power and nepotism. Such nefarious activity on the part of the complainant is contemptuous without an iota of evidence on record apart from concocted and fabricated depositions that the appellant had claimed a bribe of Rs. 300/- which otherwise was the monthly premium to be paid against the accounts held by the mother and the deceased father of the complainant.

Brief background

The prosecution case originated from a complaint filed by Sukanta Chatterjee, (an ex- Air Force member) wherein he alleged that the appellant, dealing assistant at Kalyani Vidhan Park Sub-Office, demanded a bribe of Rs. 300 to process an application for including the complainant's name in monthly income schemes after the death of his father.

It was submitted that the appellant had demanded the bribe in exchange for allowing the complainant to withdraw his MIS savings, and when the appellant refused to pay, he was denied withdrawal.

The complainant submitted that he refused to pay, a complaint was filed and following an investigation, the appellant was charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the same Act.

It was argued that PW-1, in his testimony, mentioned that he overheard a conversation in Bengali between the complainant and the appellant, where the appellant asked the complainant if he had brought everything as agreed, and the complainant affirmed. 

Appellant argued that PW-1 did not explicitly state that the appellant demanded money as gratification for performing a task beyond his official duties for personal gain at the expense of the complainant.

It was submitted that the recurring deposit account was jointly held by the complainant's parents, with a monthly deposit of Rs. 300 and the last deposit was made on 07.03.97, with a fine for a delay in payment for February 1997, resulting in a total due of Rs. 300 for March 1997.

It was submitted that the sum demanded from the complainant was not a bribe but in fact, the premium which was to be paid against the MIS scheme.

It was argued that the appellant objected to the complainant's desire to withdraw money without following proper procedures, justifying the rejection of the improper application, leading to him being framed under these charges by the complainant. 

The appellant, dealing with a trivial matter, couldn't have reasonably demanded a bribe for such a meagre amount equivalent to the monthly deposit, it was submitted.

Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's motive to manipulate his position for wrongful gain.

It observed that the complainant's actions, including filing a spurious and manipulated FIR, showcased a misuse of power and nepotism. The demand for a bribe or illegal gratification was not proven, and the delayed FIR suggested malicious implication by the complainant due to personal reasons, it stated.

"It was the admission of the complainant that his application was not in proper form. Non-acceptance of the application, not properly submitted might have triggered the ego of the ex-air force personnel i.e. the complainant to have implicated the appellant in a criminal case being boastful and impetuous of his position directly involving the higher police officials who had acted on the whims and frenzy of the de-facto complainant to brutally devastate the career and life of the appellant, a staff at the post office who evidently carried out the functions of his seniors as allotted to him," the Bench noted.

The money to have been kept in his shirt pocket cannot be presumed to be a surreptitious act on his part, since such a modicum amount cannot sub-serve a furtive act which otherwise was justifiable on account of the monthly premium to be paid, it added.

Considering the above discussion, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction against the appellant were set aside.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 31