26 April 2024 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   Medical, Pharma & Healthcare >> Miscellaneous  

A district medical officer (DMO) who was convicted of bribery by a special judge in 2011 has been acquitted by the high court. The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and believed the Appellant's explanation that the bribe money was planted by the complainant.

The Accusation:

The prosecution alleged that the DMO demanded a bribe of Rs. 6,000 from a medical officer working under him. The bribe was supposedly in exchange for releasing the budget for the medical officer's car. The prosecution claimed they set a trap and caught the DMO accepting the marked bribe money.

Defense Arguments:

The DMO denied all accusations. He argued that the complainant had a poor work performance record and a motive to frame him due to a departmental notice he issued against her. He pointed out that the investigating officer himself confirmed the budget was already released, making the bribe demand illogical. The DMO's defense also highlighted that he immediately denied accepting any bribe when questioned by the trap party. He explained that the money might have been planted in his drawer by the complainant when he went inside his house to wear shoes.

Conclusion:

The court considered the DMO's explanation about the money being planted more credible, especially given the confirmation that the budget was already allocated. Additionally, the court noted the DMO's consistent denial of accepting the bribe throughout the process. These factors, along with the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, led the court to acquit the DMO.

Importance of a Strong Defense:

This case highlights the importance of a strong defense in bribery accusations. By providing a plausible explanation for the alleged bribe and pointing out inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, the DMO was able to convince the court of his innocence.

  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988