Calcutta High Court acquits Railway doctor caught in CBI ‘bribery trap’

Kolkata: Observing a violation in the process of obtaining sanction for prosecution, the Calcutta High Court acquitted a Divisional Medical Officer (DMO) of the South Eastern (SE) Railway who was caught in a 2006 bribery trap set by a team of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers of the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in Kolkata.

The Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh was moved by the appellant (doctor) challenging the judgement of the Special CBI Court, Asansol which awarded him three years rigorous imprisonment under Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA), 1988.

In 2006, a junior engineer (complainant) of SE Railway complained to the CBI alleging Sanjay Kumar Arya, DMO, Divisional Railway Hospital, SE Railway, Adra, Purulia, demanded Rs 500 from him in his office chamber at the hospital as “illegal gratification” for allowing him extra leave for further rest from injury. He was allegedly asked to bring the money to his residence. Accordingly, a case was registered and the CBI submitted chargesheet after probe. The prosecution relied on 16 witnesses.

The CBI team set up a trap to catch him red-handed. Plan was hatched where the complainant, accompanied with another witness posing as a relative, visited the doctor’s premises with five Rs 100 notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder. When the doctor allegedly took it and put it inside his shirt pocket, the CBI team waiting outside caught him. He was asked to put his hand inside a bowl of diluted washing soda. The water turned pink. His shirt and other items which came in contact with the smeared notes underwent the same. Evidence was noted in pre and post trap memos and samples were sent for forensics.

Taking into account the defence counsel’s contentions, the court observed that the request for grant of sanction sent to the Ministry of Railways was approved by the then Railway Minister and not by the sanctioning authority (Deputy Secretary (Discipline and Appeal), Railway Board) who just signed it. Court observed this was an infraction in respect of the purposes for which Section 19 of the POCA, 1988 was incorporated. Further, the court doubted the credibility of the deposition of the witness who accompanied the complainant to the doctor’s room. A vast improvement in his version of the deposition in respect of a similar set of facts was observed. The court acquitted the doctor from all charges.