RAIPUR: In a 25-year-old case, the Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a sub-engineer “wrongly” convicted of accepting Rs 1,000 as bribe for the valuation of work undertaken under Jivan Dhara Yojana for irrigation purposes in Manendragarh.
The appellant in the high court R P Kashyap, now an assistant engineer, was trapped in the raid by the police following a complaint by one Prem Mishra with the office of SP Lokayukta in Bilaspur alleging that the officer was asking for a bribe amount of Rs 1,000 for releasing the third and final instalment.
Mishra after giving the currency notes at the residence of Kashyap, then posted as sub-engineer in Janpad panchayat Manendragarh, got the trap team of police to seize the amount and charges were framed against Kashyap.
Later the trial court (of first additional sessions judge) in Ambikapur convicted him under the prevention of corruption act 1988 and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and Rs 3,000 as fine.
The lawyers appearing in the high court for the appellant Kashyap, who is on bail, claimed the trial court had wrongly convicted their client as there was insufficient evidence on record to prove the tainted money was accepted as illegal gratification.
The defence taken by the appellant is that the complainant had left a sum of Rs 800 with him and at the latter’s request, Kashyap had sent 1,500 bricks and five bags of cement in a tractor to Mishra’s house. The cost of the bricks and the cement sent was Rs 1,975 out of which Rs 800 was already received by the appellant.
With Rs 1,175 remaining, the complainant gave him Rs 700 on that account and got him trapped, stated the proceedings in the court. The court took cognisance of the statements that gave credence to the defence of the appellant.
The statements by the executive engineer in the same department in Manendragarh, Alauddin an owner of a shop of cement, Dhaniram owner of a tractor-trolley were taken into account during the hearing.
The high court Justice Sanjay K Jaiswal acquitted Kashyap of charges framed citing that the evidence on record do not inspire confidence of the court to hold the appellant guilty as the demand of bribe or money accepted as illegal gratification is not established in any way.
Insufficient evidence
The lawyers appearing in the high court for the appellant Kashyap, who is on bail, claimed the trial court had wrongly convicted their client as there was insufficient evidence on record to prove the tainted money was accepted as illegal gratification