Thane Court Convicts Assistant Public Prosecutor In ₹10,000 Bribery Case

The Thane Sessions Court has convicted a 52-year-old Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sandhya Bachhav, who was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs 10,000 from a complainant to conduct a case on behalf of the State. The court held the accused guilty under Section 7 (accepting illegal gratification) and Sections 13(1) and 13(2) (criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her to six months of rigorous imprisonment under each section. The court also imposed a fine of Rs1,000 for each offence.

Complaint Filed With ACB

The case dates back to April 2013, when complainant Radha Harshadrai Parekh approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Thane, with a complaint that that Assistant Public Prosecutor Sandhya Bachhav had demanded a bribe of Rs 50,000 to effectively conduct a trial in a case filed by Parekh against a Vashi resident, Michael Santhana, on September 28, 2011.

Demand and Initial Payment

According to the complaint, Bachhav informed Parekh that the matter was assigned to her and demanded Rs 50,000 for arguing the case, failing which she would not advance arguments on her behalf. She insisted on receiving Rs 10,000 as an initial payment, provided her mobile number to the complainant, and instructed her to call in the evening while cautioning her not to speak for long durations on the phone.

Key Evidence Considered

In its order copy, the court presided by judge Suryakant Shide, placed significant reliance on the prosecution evidence, including a voice recording and currency notes dusted with anthracene powder, which was found on the fingers of the accused when she counted the bribe amount. The court observed that the evidence clearly established both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Electronic Evidence Accepted

While accepting the electronic evidence, the court held that the tape-recorded conversation produced on record was primary evidence and did not require a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, as it was the original recording device used during the trap. The court noted that a 65B certificate is mandatory only in cases involving secondary electronic evidence.

Supreme Court Precedents Cited

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the court observed that original tape-recorded conversations handed over to the police constitute primary evidence and therefore do not require authentication under Section 65B. The court further held that there was a clear and unequivocal demand and acceptance of Rs 10,000 by the accused, and that the testimony of the witnesses was corroborated by each other as well as by the recorded conversation stored in the memory card.

Also Watch:

Defence Argument Rejected

The court rejected the defence argument that the complainant was a habitual complainant who frequently lodged cases against public officials and had falsely implicated the accused. It held that the complainant’s demeanour did not affect the credibility of her testimony. The court observed that her evidence was consistent, free from infirmities, and substantially corroborated by other witnesses, including the panch witnesses and the investigating officer.

Court’s Final Observation

“In respect of the demeanour of the informant, her evidence on record is consistent and without any infirmity. The mere fact that previous complaints were lodged by the informant against public officers does not affect her evidence in the present case,” the court held, adding that the evidence of demand, pre-trap verification, and acceptance of the bribe was unimpeachable and could not be brushed aside.

During further investigation, the accused was arrested vide panchanama Exh.64. On 08.04.2013 the voice sample of accused was taken in presence of panchas by inserting blank SD card in voice recorder. PI Chaugule recorded statements of witnesses. The CDR and SDR of mobile phone of informant and accused were sought. The proposal for approval of sanction for prosecution was also sent, but by that time the accused was removed from the post of public prosecutor, hence the charge sheet was filed against the accused without sanction.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/