Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 35-Year-Old Bribery Case, Reduces Sentence of 75-Year-Old Excise Inspector
In a recent ruling reinforcing the judiciary’s firm stance against corruption, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of an excise inspector in a decades-old bribery case while reducing his sentence, considering his advanced age and the long passage of time since the offence.
A Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Bahadur Singh against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which had upheld his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the Court modified the quantum of sentence imposed earlier.
Background of the 1990 Bribery Trap
The case dates back to June 1990 when the accused was working as a constable in the Excise Department in Udham Singh Nagar district of Uttarakhand. According to the prosecution, the complainant Kashmir Singh was allegedly involved in manufacturing illicit liquor and his premises were raided by the excise officials on June 16, 1990.
During the raid, the accused allegedly demanded ₹500 as illegal gratification and threatened that a challan would be sent to the court if the amount was not paid. The complainant subsequently approached the Vigilance Department and lodged a complaint regarding the demand for a bribe.
Based on the complaint, vigilance authorities organized a trap on June 19, 1990. The complainant was given five currency notes of ₹100 each which were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The trap was arranged at a restaurant in Khatima where the accused allegedly accepted the tainted money.
After the transaction, vigilance officials apprehended the accused and recovered the marked currency notes from him. The hand-wash test conducted with sodium carbonate solution turned pink, indicating contact with the phenolphthalein-treated currency notes and supporting the prosecution’s case.
Table of Contents
Trial Court and High Court Findings
Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The trial court convicted the accused in 2006 and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2), along with fines. The Uttarakhand High Court later affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the complainant had falsely implicated him due to personal animosity and to escape legal consequences related to the alleged illegal liquor business. It was also argued that there were inconsistencies in witness testimonies and that the trap proceedings were not reliable.
However, the Supreme Court found no merit in these arguments and held that the conviction was supported by reliable evidence and consistent testimonies of witnesses.
Addressing the argument that the shadow witness was an interested witness, the Court observed:
“Mere acquaintance with the complainant could not lead to such a conclusion.”
The Court further noted that the testimonies of the complainant and the shadow witness corroborated each other and were supported by recovery of the tainted currency notes and the phenolphthalein test.
Court Rejects Technical Objections
The appellant also contended that the tainted currency notes were not produced before the trial court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the issue had not been raised earlier during the trial proceedings, before the High Court, or even in the Special Leave Petition.
The Bench observed that the recovery of the tainted notes was duly recorded in the panchnama and corroborated by witness testimonies, thereby strengthening the prosecution’s case.
Sentence Reduced Considering Age
While affirming the conviction, the Court took into account certain mitigating circumstances when determining the sentence. The Bench noted that the offence was committed in 1990 when the appellant was about 40 years old and he is now around 75 years old.
The Court also recorded that the appellant had already spent approximately two months and twenty-four days in custody after surrendering in 2012 before being granted bail.
Considering these factors, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant while maintaining the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Significance of the Judgment
The ruling highlights the Supreme Court’s consistent position that corruption by public servants cannot be tolerated. At the same time, the Court balanced the punitive aspect of criminal law with humanitarian considerations such as the convict’s advanced age and the prolonged duration of litigation spanning more than three decades.
Case Title: Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
LATEST POSTS
READ / DOWNLOAD JUDGEMENT
