Rajasthan HC upholds bribe conviction: Rs 700 found in a shaving box, though the complainant turned hostile

Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, sitting at Jaipur, dismissed an appeal by an Assistant Sub-Inspector convicted over a 2007 trap, holding that demand and acceptance were proved by recordings, trap witnesses and chemical tests even after the complainant resiled.

An Assistant Sub-Inspector in Tonk was trapped in March 2007 with Rs 700 hidden in his shaving box, taken, the prosecution said, to close a case against the man who paid it. The man who paid it later turned hostile. On 4 November 2026 the Rajasthan High Court upheld the two-year sentence anyway.

Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, sitting at the Jaipur Bench, dismissed the appeal of Noratmal Nolkha against his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge, Ajmer, had convicted him on 24 December 2019.

The trial court gave him two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000 under each head, with three months of simple imprisonment in default. The sentences run together.

A demand to close a case

The complainant, Om Prakash Bairwa, told the Anti-Corruption Bureau that his maternal uncle had accused him and his father of burning mustard crops. A case under Sections 447, 435 and 427 of the IPC was registered against them at Police Station Sop, where Nolkha was posted.

On 23 March 2007, the complaint said, Nolkha showed him the file and offered to submit a negative final report if he paid Rs 1,000. The complainant went to the ACB instead.

On 24 March 2007 he went back to the police station with a voice recorder and an ACB constable. The recording and its transcript captured the demand, according to the prosecution, and Nolkha allegedly took Rs 300 and agreed to take the remaining Rs 700 later.

The trap of 25 March 2007

The next day Deputy Superintendent Pradeep Monga laid the trap. The complainant produced five notes of Rs 100 and four of Rs 50, which were marked and initialled. Two clerks from the Tonk Tehsil office joined as independent witnesses.

Bairwa went in alone and, on the prosecution account, placed Rs 600 on a cot at Nolkha’s instance and handed him Rs 100. He then gave the agreed signal. The team found Nolkha seated in a tracksuit, and he is said to have admitted receiving Rs 700.

Fingers and objects were washed in a sodium carbonate solution. The complainant’s right and left hands, the bedsheet and the shaving box all turned muddy or pink. Nolkha then brought the box from the adjoining toilet and the notes were taken out of it, their numbers matching those supplied.

What the appellant argued

Mr Mahendra Sharma, for Nolkha, said the demand and acceptance were not proved. The complainant had turned hostile and denied writing the complaint, and the person who scribed it was never examined.

He argued that the Section 65B certificate for the recordings was not filed with the charge-sheet and came only during trial. The two independent witnesses did not hear the conversation, no voice sample was taken, and only the transcript, not the audio, was relied on.

He also argued that Nolkha was not authorised to submit a negative final report, that the sanction was mechanical, and that the defence witnesses were ignored. Mr Manvendra Singh, the Public Prosecutor, defended the conviction.

A hostile complainant does not end the case

The court framed two questions. The first was

“whether the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be established notwithstanding the complainant having turned hostile” (para 6)

The second was whether the compact discs and transcripts were admissible without the primary audio, in light of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

On the first, the judge turned to the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi). It held that where the complainant turns hostile or dies, demand can be proved by other oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence, and the trial does not abate.

Here, the court noted, the complainant had admitted writing and signing the complaint and the transcript. He admitted visiting the ACB office and carrying a voice recorder to the police station. His denial of a demand had to be read against those admissions, and against the officers’ evidence.

A certificate filed late, and cured

It was undisputed that the Section 65B certificate was produced during trial. The order sheets show that Pradeep Monga submitted it and it was exhibited as Exhibit P-20.

The court relied on State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, under which the certificate can be produced at any stage before the trial ends, provided the accused is not prejudiced. It held that the requirements of Section 65B were substantially met, and put it in these words.

“delay in filing of the Section 65B certificate is a curable defect” (para 10.5)

The compact disc had been copied from a voice recorder in Monga’s custody, and the Malkhana register recorded its safe keeping. When the discs were exhibited, the trial court recorded that the seals were intact and bore the signatures of the complainant and witnesses.

Why the witnesses who heard nothing still counted

The independent witnesses had said they did not hear the talk between the two men. The court called that argument untenable. The notes were recovered from the shaving box at the appellant’s instance, and his hand, the box and the bedsheet all turned pink when washed.

The forensic report, Exhibit P-26, recorded traces of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein in the wash solutions. The Rs 300 demand and receipt were validated by the first transcript and disc. A second recording supported the Rs 700 transaction.

The judge held that the transcripts confirmed, “without an iota of doubt”, that the appellant demanded and received Rs 1,000 from the complainant for submitting the final report in the case against him. There was no reason to doubt the witnesses, he found, in the absence of any animosity.

The judgment records the arguments on sanction and the defence witnesses but does not discuss them separately in its findings.

Order

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of 24 December 2019 were upheld. The court found no ground to interfere with the quantum of sentence.

Nolkha must surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve the rest of the sentence. His bail bonds were cancelled, the period already undergone is to be set off, and pending applications were disposed of.