The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of Kali Shankar Dhobi, a former parcel clerk at Hatia Railway Station, in a 1995 corruption case involving an alleged demand and acceptance of ₹100 as illegal gratification for booking a motorcycle.
However, considering the prolonged pendency of the case, the appellant’s age, age-related illness and other circumstances, the Court reduced his imprisonment to the minimum sentence prescribed under the applicable law.
The case arose after a complaint was lodged before the CBI alleging that Dhobi had demanded ₹100 in addition to the prescribed motorcycle booking charge of ₹203. A trap was subsequently conducted at Hatia Railway Station on April 27, 1995.
According to the prosecution evidence, the complainant paid the ₹203 booking charge and later handed over a phenolphthalein-treated ₹100 note after the alleged demand. The money was recovered from a drawer at the appellant’s table. The chemical test conducted after the trap also produced the prosecution’s claimed result.
The appellant denied the allegations and argued that the prosecution had failed to reliably establish demand, acceptance and recovery. His counsel also pointed to contradictions concerning the journey ticket, motorcycle ownership, the trap proceedings and the statements of witnesses.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava examined the evidence of the complainant, shadow witnesses and other prosecution witnesses along with the documentary and scientific evidence.
The Court held that the foundational facts of demand, acceptance and recovery had been proved beyond doubt, permitting the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in relation to the Section 7 charge. It noted that the prosecution evidence supported the alleged demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money.
The Court also rejected the argument that the witnesses’ use of the expression “extra” instead of directly using the word “bribe” weakened the prosecution case.
“Therefore, any money, which is other than a legal charges demanded by any public servant for doing his lawful duty shall amount to demand of bribe or illegal gratification furnishing motive or reward for doing such official work. The appellant cannot escape from his liability merely because he has used the word ‘Extra’ not the word ‘Bribe’ directly.”
The Court further observed that the prescribed booking charge was ₹203 and the appellant had not explained the purpose of demanding an additional ₹100. It also rejected the argument regarding lack of verification, noting that the complainant had been thoroughly interrogated twice and that CBI Inspector P.K. Panigrahi had recommended registration of the FIR. The Court held that the Inspector’s non-examination did not affect the core of the prosecution case.
The High Court found no legal substance in the challenge to the conviction and upheld the trial court’s finding. However, it held that the original sentence was disproportionate in the circumstances, particularly as the incident occurred in 1995, the appeal had remained pending for more than two decades, and the appellant was over 75 years old and had already been dismissed from service.
Accordingly, the Court reduced the one-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 to six months’ simple imprisonment and reduced the one-and-a-half-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(1)(d) to one year’s simple imprisonment. The fines already deposited were left undisturbed, and both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The appeal was dismissed on merits with the above modification in sentence. The appellant’s bail bond was cancelled and he was directed to surrender before the trial court within two months.
Case Title: Kali Shankar Dhobi v. State of Jharkhand through CBI
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 885 of 2004
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Decision Date: 10 September 2026
