The Delhi High Court overturned a 2002 ruling convicting two engineers from the city government’s flood control department for accepting… $1,800 bribes from a contractor employee in 1991, arguing that the lower court ruled against them on the basis of “unsatisfactory evidence.”
In a 48-page ruling, Justice Chandrashekharan Sodha said the material on record was insufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“Doubt, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, I find that the appellants/A1 (Assistant Engineer VK Datta) and A2 (Junior Engineer Dinesh Garg) are entitled to the benefit of doubt. In such circumstances, it can only be said that the trial court erred in relying on the aforesaid unsatisfactory evidence to arrive at a conclusion on the guilt of the accused,” the court ruled in its April 2 judgment.
The court also noted that key witnesses, including the contractor, whose employee filed the complaint, were not questioned during the trial, and that there were inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the agency.
The court also emphasized that although the complaint alleged that bribes were paid to make the management settle the outstanding dues, it was found that there were no dues or liability on the part of the management towards the contractor in a timely manner.
“This also raises doubts as to whether there was any motive or occasion for the alleged demand for illegal gratification by A1 and A2,” the bench said.
“The failure of the prosecution to cross-examine the aforesaid essential witnesses, coupled with the aforementioned contradictions in the materials, raises further doubts in the mind of the court. The aforesaid aspects raise doubts in the mind of the court regarding the prosecution’s case…” the order read.
“In such circumstances, it can only be held that the court erred in relying on the aforesaid unsatisfactory evidence to arrive at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused,” the order added.
Garg and Datta were represented by advocate Sameer Chandra and senior advocate Sunil Dalal, while the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was represented by special public prosecutor Atul Guleria.
The engineers were booked by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act in September 1991 for allegedly demanding and accepting bribe $900 to facilitate the clearing of the contractor’s current and final invoices. The court of first instance convicted them and sentenced them to two years’ imprisonment in September 2002.
In their appeal before the Supreme Court, the two insisted that they were wrongly implicated in the case and that the CBI had failed to identify any motive or basis for the alleged bribery demand and that their presence at the relevant time was questionable, as muster rolls show that they were not present in the office when the alleged demand was made but were at an inspection site.
