Kerala High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Range Officer Accused Of Taking Bribe After Prosecution Fails To Establish Voice Samples

The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act initiated against a Range Officer at Social Forestry Range accused of taking bribe, citing prosecution's failure to establish his voice sample to prove the telephonic conversation she allegedly had with the complainant.

Justice K. Babu noted that the analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) had found that the identity of the speaker could not be positively ascertained from the voice sample that had been alleged to be that of the accused petitioner's, due to the speech amount being too little and low signal-to-noise ratio.

It further found that the allegation levelled against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent that the former insisted on bribe from him was also doubtful considering that the petitioner had taken a tough stand against the latter, and insisted on him completing the work in terms of the contract, which, in the opinion of the Court, could only be the inference of a prudent man. 

"The resultant conclusion is that the petitioner has placed materials, which are of sterling and impeccable quality, to rule out the materials, which are of sterling and impeccable quality, to rule out the reject and overrule the factual assertions in the FIS against the petitioner, the sole material now relied on by the prosecution to rope in the petitioner in the crime. The materials relied on by the petitioner are also sufficient to destroy the factual basis of the accusation against her," the Court observed, adding that the proceedings against her would result in abuse of process of the Court and not serve the ends of justice. 

The 3rd respondent herein held a contract license under the Kerala Forest Department, and was engaged in the contract work of the Forest Department at Attingal in Thiruvananthapuram Range. He had been awarded the contract for the maintenance of compensatory afforestation at Kerala University Campus, Karyavattam, in lieu of tree felling for the Vizhinjam International Seaport Project. 

The petitioner was responsible for passing the bills submitted for the work undertaken by the 3rd respondent. 

The 3rd respondent alleged that after he had completed the work of compensatory afforestation at the Kerala University Campus, he had approached the petitioner for passing the bill, but that the latter in turn, demanded Rs. 70,000/- from him as bribe for clearing the bill. It is alleged that the petitioner had instructed the 3rd respondent to hand over the amount to another officer of the department, one Salim. 

The 3rd respondent added that he contacted Vigilance Officers pursuant to the same, and handed over 'trap money' to the said Salim, upon the petitioner's telephonic instructions. The Vigilance Officers apprehended Salim and conducted a Phenolphthalein test, which turned out to be positive. 

The petitioner denied the allegations against her, and averred that she had adopted a stern stand against the 3rd respondent for the unsatisfactory and incomplete work done by him. She added that the 3rd respondent had not submitted any bill before her, and that he was also not in any position to do so, since he had failed to comply with several clauses in the Agreement. The petitioner further submitted that if she had any intention of obtaining bribe from the 3rd respondent, she would not have forwarded adverse reports against the latter to the higher officials. 

Taking note of the decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021) that the Court would have to be cautious while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it went on to state that if the materials before it were such that the accused's defense is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts, the power under the said provision could be invoked for quashing the proceedings. 

Thus, on taking note of the factual circumstances, the Court was of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioner would result in abuse of process of the Court, and thereby quashed the same. 

It however clarified that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) could proceed with the matter qua the other accused persons independently on its own merits. 

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Cibi Thomas. Special Government Pleader Ramesh P. and Public Prosecutor Rekha appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 646

Case Title: Divya S. Rose v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Case Number: Crl.M.C.No.2384 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Order