Amount Appears To Be Too Small: Bombay High Courts Upholds Acquittal Of Doctor Accused Of Taking Rs. 100 Bribe
The Bombay High Court upheld the acquittal of a government medical officer accused of taking a bribe of Rs.100 from a patient for issuing a medical certificate. He was acquitted by the Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), from charges under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P. C. Act”). Thus, the instant appeal was filed.
A Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain ruled that the amount seemed too small to be considered a significant bribe, both in the year 2007 when the incident occurred and in 2023 when the case was heard. The Court added, “Section 20(1) of the P. C. Act provides that if in trial punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13(1)(a) or 13(1)(b) the charges are proved then it shall be presumed that the accused with a motive or reward or for inadequate consideration has accepted gratification etc. Similar presumption appears in Section 20(2) with regard to trial of offence under Sections 12 or 14(b) of the P. C. Act. However, Section 20(3) of the P. C. Act provides that if gratification etc. is trivial then no interference of corruption may be drawn.”
Considering the trivial nature of the alleged gratification, the Court agreed with the trial court's decision to acquit the medical officer.
The case revolved around a doctor, who was accused of demanding Rs. 100 from a patient for issuing a medical certificate in 2007. Patient filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), leading to a trap operation in which doctor was allegedly caught accepting the bribe.
Advocate SH Yadav appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Sandeep Salunkhe appeared for the Respondent.
The State government appealed the acquittal to the High Court, but the court upheld the trial court's decision, concluding that the case did not warrant interference.
The Court said, “As observed by me above, there are lot of inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and, therefore, the order of acquittal does not require any interference by this Court.”
The Court further added, “The amount appears to be too small in the year 2007 and moreso, in the year 2023 when the appeal is being heard against the acquittal. Therefore, assuming that the appellant complainant is able to prove the charges, (although, I have already held that they have failed to prove the charges), in my view after considering quantum at the relevant time this could be a fit case to be treated as a trivial matter to uphold the acquittal order.”
Cause Title: The State Of Maharashtra v. Dr. Anil Kacharu Shinde, [2023:BHC-AS:28868]
Click here to read/download Order