Chhattisgarh HC Acquits 83-Year-Old Ex-MPSRTC Official in 38-Year-Old Bribery Case

The single-judge bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru set aside his 2004 conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The case dates back to October 24, 1986, when one Ashok Kumar Verma lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta, alleging that Jageshwar Prasad Awadhiya, then serving as a bill assistant with MPSRTC, demanded a bribe of Rs 100 for clearing his pending arrears for the period 1981–1985.

Based on this complaint, a Lokayukta trap team prepared two Rs 50 notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder and instructed the complainant to hand them over to Awadhiya. On October 25, 1986, Awadhiya was allegedly caught with the tainted notes, which later tested positive in chemical examination.

Eighteen years later, on December 9, 2004, a trial court convicted Awadhiya under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and fined Rs 1,000.

Challenging the conviction, Awadhiya approached the High Court. His counsel, Advocate Keshav Dewangan, argued that he was falsely implicated. The defence pointed out that on the alleged date of demand, Awadhiya was not even empowered to release the arrears. The higher authority’s approval for preparation of arrears was received only on November 19, 1986, nearly a month after the alleged incident.

The defence further contended that the prosecution failed to prove any demand for illegal gratification, a necessary precondition for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Dewangan also argued that the case was flawed because it was initiated under the old Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but prosecuted under the 1988 Act.

On the contrary, the State government opposed the Appeal and supported the trial court’s findings, arguing that the trap proceedings and chemical examination established the recovery of bribe money from the accused.

After hearing both sides, the Single-Judge Bench found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The Court noted that while the tainted notes were recovered, the prosecution could not establish the crucial elements of demand and voluntary acceptance of the alleged bribe. "While the seizure of tainted notes from the accused is not in dispute, the absence of unimpeachable evidence of voluntary acceptance of the bribe, coupled with the glaring contradiction regarding whether the trap money consisted of one ₹100 note or two ₹50 notes, renders such seizure legally inconclusive. The benefit of doubt, therefore, must weigh in favour of the accused, as acceptance and seizure cannot be presumed in law merely from recovery without cogent corroboration of demand and conscious receipt," the Judge said.

It added, "While the factum of recovery stands proved formally, its evidentiary worth is substantially weakened in view of the absence of proof of demand, the doubtful circumstances surrounding acceptance, and the serious inconsistency about the denomination of the trap money. Consequently, the recovery, in isolation, cannot sustain the conviction."

“The failure of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification renders the proceedings unsustainable. The charges against the appellant (Awadhiya) are, therefore, not proved,” the Court observed.

It further held that oral, documentary, and circumstantial evidence all fell short of proving the charges. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were quashed, and Awadhiya was acquitted of all charges.

"The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of six months in terms of Section 437- A of the Cr.P.C. (481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)). The Registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record forthwith for necessary information and follow-up action," the Court ordred.

The Court also clarified that under Section 30(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, actions taken under the repealed 1947 Act would be deemed valid unless inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act.