CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has observed that recovery of tainted currency notes in bribery cases does not automatically demonstrate that the accused is engaged in criminal conduct. It was of the view that “demand for a bribe is the foundation of the offence because it demonstrates the corrupt intent of the accused”.
“Without clear and unequivocal proof of this demand, the recovery of money alone becomes circumstantial and does not automatically establish that the accused solicited or agreed to accept a bribe in exchange for an improper act,” the HC has held.
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul passed these orders last week while allowing an appeal filed by Parminderjit Singh Sodhi, who served as district development and panchayat officer (DDPO) in Punjab. He had challenged the judgment dated July 12, 2008, through which he was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by Special Judge Nawanshahr in a corruption case.
As per the allegations, while working as an inquiry officer related to the misappropriation of funds of Govt High School Sanawa, he accepted a bribe of Rs 3,000. A complaint was made against him by one Balbir Kaur, who was a member of a parents’ teacher association. The currency notes provided by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to her with instructions to deliver them to the accused upon demand.
As per the prearranged plan, the raiding team, led by DSP Amrik Singh, proceeded with the operation. The accused was caught red-handed, and the tainted currency notes were recovered from a drawer in his office table in Aug 2000.
Challenging his conviction, the appellant had submitted that he was not able to extend any undue favour to the complainant and the tainted money was not recovered from his conscious possession but from the drawer of his office. He claimed that he neither demanded nor accepted the amount and was attending a function organised due to the chief minister’s visit to Banga.
Opposing his plea, the state counsel argued, “Even if the accused was not in a position to extend any favour, explanation sub-clause (d) to Section 7 of the PC Act makes it clear that the mere act of obtaining gratification is an offence.”
However, the HC acquitted the appellant from the charges, observing that when there are contradictions in the case of the prosecution regarding how the money was recovered and no evidence to establish that the accused physically handled or accepted the tainted money, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be legally applied.