The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the conviction of a former bank manager in a bribery case, holding that the recovery of tainted currency notes, along with the hand-wash and pant-wash tests turning pink, provided sufficient circumstantial corroboration even though the shadow witness turned hostile.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed Daleep Kumar Bhat’s appeal against his conviction under the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). However, the Court reduced his imprisonment from two years to one year for each offence.
Background
The prosecution alleged that Bhat, while serving as Manager of Jammu Rural Bank at Pargwal, demanded ₹7,000 from a borrower for releasing the second instalment of a sanctioned ₹1 lakh loan. The amount was subsequently settled at ₹5,000.
Following a complaint dated June 14, 2010, the Vigilance Organization laid a trap. During the operation, the complainant allegedly handed over the money to Bhat. The currency notes were subsequently recovered from the back pocket of his trousers.
The investigating team also conducted sodium carbonate tests. Both the hand-wash and the wash of the trouser pocket reportedly turned pink.
The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, convicted Bhat on February 18, 2017, sentencing him to two years of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 for each offence. He challenged the conviction before the High Court.
The Court noted that Madan Singh, the shadow witness, had not completely disowned the prosecution's case. Although he disputed the recovery of money from Bhat's possession, he confirmed that the complainant handed over the money following a demand by the appellant.
Justice Dhar observed that the recovery was independently supported by members of the trap team. The pink colour produced during the hand-wash and pant-wash tests also supported the prosecution's version.
The Court observed:
"Even the hostile witness, PW Madan Singh, has clearly stated that the demand emanated from the appellant, pursuant to which the tainted money was handed over by the complainant to the appellant."
The Court further held:
"From these proved facts, a presumption can be drawn that the appellant had willingly received the currency notes."
It also rejected the defence that the complainant had forcibly placed the money in Bhat's pocket, finding that the defence witnesses had no personal knowledge of what happened inside the shop before the trap team arrived.
The High Court concluded that the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery through convincing evidence.
The Court held:
"The evidence on record regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money is cogent and convincing. Hence there is no reason to discard the same."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. However, considering the six-year trial period and the nine-year pendency of the appeal, it reduced the imprisonment from two years to one year for each offence.
The fine of ₹10,000 for each offence was maintained. Bhat was directed to surrender before the trial court within one month.
