Satya Ranjan Mridha Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Calcutta High Court)
Conclusion: Prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, recovery of tainted money, and unlawful transmission of confidential recruitment examination papers. The inconsistencies highlighted by the defence were inconsequential and did not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The sanction for prosecution was held to be valid, the trap proceedings were found reliable, and the conviction of the accused was accordingly sustained.
Held: The prosecution alleged that two CPWD officials, namely an Assistant Engineer and an Upper Division Clerk, entered into a conspiracy to leak confidential recruitment examination papers for the post of Draftsman Grade-III in return for illegal gratification of ₹10,000. Acting on a complaint, CBI conducted a trap operation during which the tainted currency was recovered from the UDC, whose phenolphthalein hand-wash tested positive. Confidential examination papers were simultaneously recovered from the UDC as well as from the chamber of the Assistant Engineer. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by the competent authorities, following which both accused were prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC. The evidence included the complainant, independent trap witnesses, sanctioning authorities, and departmental officials establishing the chain of custody of the confidential question papers. Appellants contended that the prosecution failed to establish a valid demand and acceptance of illegal gratification; that the sanction orders were granted mechanically without application of mind; that the complainant and independent witnesses made several contradictory statements during cross-examination; that no reliable documentary evidence established the movement of confidential question papers through the Assistant Engineer; and that the recoveries and alleged disclosures could not sustain conviction. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the complainant’s testimony was fully corroborated by independent trap witnesses, recovery of tainted currency, positive chemical test, seizure of confidential question papers, and contemporaneous documents, while the discrepancies elicited in cross-examination related only to peripheral matters and did not affect the core prosecution case. It was held that the evidence of the complainant remained consistent on the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance of the bribe amount, delivery of confidential question papers, and the role played by both accused. The independent trap witness fully corroborated the pre-trap proceedings, recovery of tainted money, positive phenolphthalein test, seizure of question papers, and subsequent recovery of another set of confidential papers from the chamber of the Assistant Engineer. Minor omissions and inconsistencies brought out during extensive cross-examination were held to relate only to peripheral details arising from lapse of time and did not undermine the credibility of the witnesses on material particulars. The sanction orders were found to have been issued by competent authorities after considering the relevant records and could not be invalidated merely because the sanctioning authorities did not independently remember every document examined years later. The chain of official custody of the confidential examination papers, together with the recoveries effected during the trap, furnished sufficient corroborative evidence linking the accused with the offence.
