'Rs 100 Appears to Be Too Small': Bombay HC Upholds Acquittal of Medical Officer Accused of Taking Bribe

The Bombay High Court has upheld the acquittal of a medical officer who was accused of accepting a bribe of Rs 100 in exchange for issuing a medical certificate in 2007. A single-judge bench of the high court comprising Justice Jitendra Jain said that the amount appeared to be too small.

“The amount appears to be too small in the year 2007 and more so, in the year 2023 when the appeal is being heard against the acquittal. Therefore, assuming that the appellant complainant is able to prove the charges, (although, I have already held that they have failed to prove the charges), in my view after considering quantum at the relevant time this could be a fit case to be treated as a trivial matter to uphold the acquittal order,” the order reads.

The Bombay High Court was hearing an appeal filed by the state government challenging the acquittal of a medical officer accused of accepting a Rs 100 bribe in exchange for issuing a medical certificate in 2007.

The complaint was lodged against the medical officer, who had been serving in Pune district since 1995.

According to the complainant, in 2007, the medical officer treated his injuries and then demanded a Rs. 100 bribe in return for issuing a medical certificate.

Subsequently, the complainant reported the incident to the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), leading to a trap operation in which the medical officer was caught.

This resulted in proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the medical officer.

However, after a trial, the special judge acquitted the medical officer of all charges, prompting the state government to file an appeal.

The high court in its order noted that the Prevention of Corruption Act gives a clue that in case of trivial matters, the court may refuse to draw the presumption of corruption.

“Section 20(3) of the P. C. Act provides that if gratification etc. is trivial then no interference of corruption may be drawn. Section 20(3) of the P. C. Act gives a clue that in case of trivial matter, the court may refuse to draw the presumption of corruption. Therefore, the issue to be examined is whether the offence in the facts of the present case is trivial,” the order reads.

Therefore, the court said that the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on the appreciation of evidence.