Justice Served? Telangana High Court Acquits Official in 18-Year-Old Rs 4,000 Bribe Case, Citing Lack of Evidence

In a significant ruling that underscores the meticulous nature of legal proceedings, the Telangana High Court has overturned the conviction of a government official, Mr. K. Ashok Kumar, in an 18-year-old bribery case. The case, which originated from an alleged demand for a mere Rs 4,000 bribe, saw Mr.

Kumar initially sentenced to a one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine by the ACB Court in 2011.

The protracted legal battle began in 2005 when a complainant, a former employee of the Roads and Buildings department, accused Ashok Kumar, then a section officer in the Chief Engineer’s office, of demanding Rs 4,000.

This alleged bribe was supposedly for processing and clearing an advance for the complainant's medical expenses.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court's conviction in 2011 relied heavily on the complainant's testimony, combined with the fact that phenolphthalein powder, used to detect handling of tainted money, was found on Ashok Kumar's hands.

This evidence formed the crux of the prosecution's case, leading to the initial judgment against the official.

However, the High Court, under the insightful scrutiny of Justice K. Surender, approached the evidence with a more critical eye. The court meticulously reviewed the entire record, including the cross-examination of the complainant.

It was during this review that a crucial detail emerged: the complainant, in his cross-examination, admitted that he did not see Ashok Kumar physically accepting the tainted currency notes. This admission cast a shadow of doubt over the direct act of bribe acceptance.

Furthermore, the High Court noted that another key prosecution witness, the mediator, also failed to corroborate the direct acceptance of the bribe by the accused.

In fact, this witness even testified that the complainant had mentioned that Ashok Kumar was not in the office on the day of the alleged trap, a statement that further weakened the prosecution's claims.

Justice Surender's judgment highlighted a fundamental principle of criminal law: for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The mere recovery of tainted money from the accused, without concrete evidence of demand or voluntary acceptance, is insufficient to secure a conviction. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the 'conscious acceptance' of the bribe money by Ashok Kumar.

This acquittal serves as a poignant reminder of the intricate challenges in corruption cases, where circumstantial evidence often needs to be buttressed by direct proof of intent and action.

It reiterates that the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution and that any lingering doubt must ultimately benefit the accused. For Mr. K. Ashok Kumar, after nearly two decades, the long shadow of accusation has finally been lifted, restoring his freedom and reputation.