Chhattisgarh High Court acquits health directorate clerk Prakash Jaiswal in ACB bribery case
The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the 2016 conviction of a health directorate clerk in an ACB trap case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove any bribe demand.
Key points
- The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a clerk of the Directorate of Health Services, Raipur, in an Anti Corruption Bureau trap case.
- The court set aside a 2016 trial court sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 5,000 fine under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- The court held that recovery of money alone is not enough to convict when the prosecution fails to prove that a bribe was demanded.
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 28 October 2026 acquitted Prakash Jaiswal, then Assistant Grade-II at the Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in a 2009 bribery trap case brought by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Raipur. The court set aside his conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that he demanded a bribe.
What Happened
A special court under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Raipur had convicted the clerk on 18 October 2016 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000.
According to the prosecution, as recorded in the judgment, the clerk had sought money to process a health worker's leave settlement, and an ACB trap party recovered Rs 5,000 in marked notes from him on 4 August 2009. He denied any demand and said he had been falsely implicated.
The High Court found that the complaint was not verified before the trap, that the prosecution did not prove the voice on the tape recording was the clerk's, and that the complainant said he had not met the clerk before the transaction. Relying on Supreme Court rulings, the court held that mere acceptance and recovery of money is not enough to convict without proof of a demand. Giving him the benefit of doubt, it allowed the appeal. His bail bond stays in force for six months under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.
The charges were allegations that the court has now found not proved; an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court, and due process continues.
What It Means
The ruling restates a settled rule: in a bribery case, the prosecution must prove that the public servant demanded the money, not just that marked notes were found on them. For investigating agencies, it underlines the need to verify complaints and prove recordings properly before a trap.
Citizens who face a bribe demand from an official can still report it to their state's anti-corruption bureau; Oquilia's guide to every state's helpline is at https://www.oquilia.com/report-a-bribe.
Source: High Court judgment
Sources & Citations
- High Court judgment — Chhattisgarh High Court