The Supreme Court has acquitted two Gujarat government employees in a 30-year-old bribery case. This case was of only Rs 20 but many parties remained entangled in this case for 3 decades. The case of Rs 20 continued for 3 decades.
Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar's bench said that punishment cannot be imposed merely because Rs 20 has been recovered. First it must be proved that a bribe was demanded.
Also read: Criminal cases registered against 14 CMs and 326 MPs, revealed in Supreme Court
What is the matter?
In February 1996, a student went to the Bechari Gram Panchayat office in Anand district to get his income certificate. He needed this certificate for scholarship. The allegation was that the clerk asked for a bribe of Rs 120, Rs 100 for himself and Rs 20 for the peon.
How were the employees trapped?
The student complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). ACB laid a trap and gave Rs 120 to the marked student. After getting the certificate, the student gave Rs 20 to the peon. During the raid, those notes were recovered from the peon, but Rs 100 was not found with the clerk.
What did the court say?
The court found that there were several contradictions in the prosecution's statement. The student had said something different in a different matter. ACB had asked to pay full Rs 120, yet the student paid only Rs 20. In cross-examination, the student admitted that the peon himself had not asked for the bribe.
Also read: Mahua Moitra case: What did the Supreme Court say on 'egg' that infuriated CJP?
How were the accused acquitted?
The court considered the peon's version more correct that the student had given Rs 20 because it was the next day of Eid. The permission to prosecute the clerk was also given by the wrong officer, hence it was illegal. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the trial court and Gujarat High Court and acquitted both the accused.
The court case that lasted for 30 years was settled by the Supreme Court. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said that mere recovery does not prove guilt if the demand is not proved.