Acquittal Upheld: Medical Officer's Demand Allegation Not Substantiated in J.S.Y. Scheme Case

Case title:

STATE OF ODISHA v. SANJUBALA ROUT

Date of Order:

17^TH AUGUST 2023

Bench:

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

Parties: APPELLANT - STATE OF ODISHA // RESPONDENT – SANJUBALA ROUT

SUBJECT:

The case involves allegations of bribery against the respondent, a medical officer, regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in the amount of Rs. 400 from the complainant (P.W.3) in exchange for releasing a financial benefit in the amount of Rs. 1,400 under the Janani Suraksha Yojana (J.S.Y.) scheme, which is related to maternal health care. The Prevention of Corruption Act's Sections 13(2), 13(1) (d), and 7 together with Section 7 were used to charge the respondent. Medical professionals, security guards, and experts who performed chemical analyses were among the witnesses. Due to inconsistencies in the evidence, uncertainty regarding the timing of the alleged bribe, and a lack of conclusive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial court exonerated the respondent. The case serves as a reminder of the need for strong proof in corruption cases and the trial court's emphasis on analysing witness testimony, written evidence, and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the alleged bribery.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

1. Section 7: states that “a public servant shall accept any gratification other than lawful remuneration for an official act. Corruption is the activity of obtaining illegal benefits by a person entrusted with a position of authority.

1. Section 13(1)(d):  (d) if he,

1. by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
2. by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
3. while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or

2. Section 13(2): Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

OVERVIEW:

In the present case, the prosecution alleges that the respondent, a hospital staff member, demanded a bribe of Rs.550 from P.W.3 to expedite the release of Rs.1, 400 in benefits for his wife's childbirth under the Janani Suraksha Yojana, since P.W 3 could not pay Rs. 550, they ended up paying Rs. 400. The prosecution presented witness testimonies, documentary evidence, and examination reports to support their claims. However, the trial court acquitted the respondent, raising doubts about the authenticity of the demand, the circumstances of the trap, and the reliability of key witnesses. The trial court stressed the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal.

On appeal, the higher court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the trial court's thorough evaluation of evidence and the requirement for the prosecution's case to stand on its own merits. The appeal court reiterated the principles of evidence, the presumption of innocence, and the substantial burden for reversing acquittals. This case underscores the intricacies of burden of proof, the necessity of strong evidence in corruption cases, and the cautious approach to challenging acquittals in the criminal justice system.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the evidence presented was adequate to prove charges of bribery and corruption against the accused public servant and justify overturning the trial court's acquittal?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

1. The appellant was represented by Mr. Sangram Das.
2. The prosecution contended that the respondent, a medical officer, had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.550 from the complainant's wife for issuing a cheque under the J.S.Y. scheme.
3. The learned counsel argued that a vigilance team had set up a pre-arranged trap, with marked currency notes, to catch the respondent in the act of accepting the bribe.
4. The prosecution presented valid witness to prove that the accused accepted the bribe, and also presented evidence of chemical examination showing phenolphthalein detection in sodium carbonate solution, indicating the respondent's contact with the tainted money.
5. It was argued that the respondent violated the guidelines of the J.S.Y. scheme by not issuing the cheque without proper documentation until September 25, 2010. The prosecution also pointed out inconsistencies in the defenses’ version of events, such as the absence of any evidence regarding placing money on the table and the lack of explanation for the presence of marked currency in the respondent's possession.
6. The prosecution invoked the principle that once foundational facts are established, a presumption of fact can be made regarding the demand and acceptance of an illegal gratification. The prosecution argued that the trial court's reasoning was flawed and the evidence was misinterpreted, leading to the incorrect acquittal of the accused.
7. The prosecution cited applicable case law, including the Supreme Court's rulings on circumstantial evidence, the presumption of innocence, and the role of appellate courts in reviewing convictions.

 It was argued that the prosecution had proven its allegations in accordance with sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution emphasised the lack

1. of a convincing defence and demonstrated that the respondent's account of the events was improbable and unsupported.
2. The prosecution emphasised the dual presumption in favour of the accused and the requirement of compelling evidence to reverse the trial court's finding of not guilty. The prosecution argued that the evidence presented proved the respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and urged the appellate court to overturn the conviction.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

1. The respondent was represented by learned counsel Mr. S.C. Mekap.
2. The defense asserted that the delay in issuing the cheque was due to the beneficiary's failure to provide required documents promptly. Stated that there was no evidence of a prior demand for money before the cheque issuance. Argued that the money recovered was for sweets and not a bribe, as it was a happy occasion of a son's birth.
3. The defence also highlighted that the beneficiary did not complain about any demand for bribe, casting doubt on the prosecution's case & also questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses and their consistency in describing the events. Pointed out inconsistencies in the sealing process of evidence, raising doubts about its integrity.
4. The learned counsel observed that the case was undermined by the prosecution witnesses' failure to mention a demand for money during their opening statements. Proposed a different explanation for the accusations, one that involved personal animosity and a fabrication of evidence against the respondent. Argued that the case, particularly the demand element, had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
5. The learned counsel argued that the legal rule that the prosecution must rely solely on its own evidence and cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defence was emphasised. Asserted that the trial court's view (acquittal) should be followed because there were two plausible theories. Claimed that prosecution evidence was contradicted by defence testimony, weakening the prosecution's case.
6. It was alleged that the respondent was falsely implicated due to personal disputes and misunderstandings. Highlighted the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and questioned the prosecution's evidence. Argued that asking for money for sweets was not a demand for illegal gratification. Stressed that prosecution must fully establish its case and not rely on the defense's weaknesses.
7. The defence stated that the trial court's justification for the acquittal was sound and that it was not arbitrary in nature. Raised questions about the alleged demand by highlighting circumstantial inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the respondent. Key factors included the delayed submission of necessary documents for the J.S.Y. scheme benefit, which explained the late issuance of the cheque. The defense effectively questioned the credibility of the prosecution's claim of a prior bribe demand, suggesting it was a misunderstanding related to celebratory sweet. Inconsistent evidence handling also cast doubt on its reliability. The appellate court acknowledged the trial court's meticulous examination of evidence and reasoned decision. The defense's alternative motive theory further undermined the prosecution's case. The principle of presumption of innocence favored the accused, and the court emphasized that reversing an acquittal demands strong reasons. Therefore, due to doubts regarding the demand's veracity and insufficient proof, the acquittal was upheld. The appellate court noted that the trial court had meticulously analyzed the evidence, including the defense's version, and gave cogent reasons for acquittal. The defense's alternate motive theory was considered, weakening the prosecution's case. The principle of presumption of innocence favored the accused, and the court upheld the trial court's view, emphasizing that interference with an acquittal requires strong and compelling reasons. Thus, the acquittal was maintained due to doubts about the demand's credibility and the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the evidence showed that the necessary document for J.S.Y. scheme disbursement was only submitted on September 25, 2010, when the Rs. 1,400/- cheque was issued, which was supported by the seizure of Laila Begum's J.S.Y. card, the wife of P.W. 3. This was further supported by Laila Begum's signature and the date on the pertinent document. The trial court's justifications for acquitting were deemed reasonable because there were questions about the demand allegation and the defense's justification for not paying the bill matched testimony from witnesses for the prosecution.  The trial court's strategy contained no errors or a dearth of evidence, according to the appellate court's analysis of the entire case. The trial judge's thorough investigation, consideration of important evidence, and grant of the respondent the benefit of the doubt were in line with the rule that an acquittal should be upheld unless there are compelling circumstances. Due to the absence of such justifications, the appeal was rejected for lack of merit. The trial court was given the mandate to deliver the verdict to the responsible court for further action.