The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of a 75-year-old retired railway parcel clerk, Kali Shankar Dhobi, who was charged with accepting a ₹100 bribe in 1995. The case, Kali Shankar Dhobi v. State of Jharkhand, was presided over by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava. Despite affirming the conviction, the court reduced Dhobi’s sentence, considering his advanced age, the three-decade delay in the proceedings, and his previous dismissal from service.
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to April 27, 1995, when Nirmal Kumar Bengani lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Bengani claimed that Dhobi, then serving as a parcel clerk at Hatia Railway Station, demanded an extra ₹100 to book his motorcycle for transport to Samastipur, over and above the official charge of ₹203.
The Sting Operation
To verify Bengani’s allegations, the CBI set up a sting operation. They treated a ₹100 note with phenolphthalein powder, a chemical that reveals contact with treated objects. On the day of the operation, Bengani, accompanied by two independent witnesses, approached Dhobi, while CBI officials remained nearby. Dhobi issued the official receipt for ₹203 and allegedly demanded the additional ₹100, which Bengani handed over. Dhobi placed the treated note in a drawer, after which Bengani signaled the CBI team to intervene.
Evidence and Conviction
The CBI recovered the ₹100 note from the drawer, matching the serial number recorded before the operation. Further, a chemical test confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein powder on Dhobi’s hands, substantiating the bribery charges. Despite Dhobi’s denial and his lawyer’s argument highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the High Court found these discrepancies insufficient to weaken the prosecution’s case.
Justice Srivastava emphasized that illegal gratification must be proven through demand, acceptance, and recovery, all of which were established in this case. Consequently, the court upheld Dhobi’s conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while revising his sentence from one year to six months for the Section 7 charge and from 1.5 years to one year for the Section 13 charge. These sentences are to run concurrently.
Conclusion and Directives
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava directed Dhobi, who was on bail, to surrender before the trial court within two months. Advocates Sameer Saurabh and Divya represented Dhobi, while Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) Prashant Pallav and AC ASGI Aryan Anurag represented the State.
The judgment reinforces the legal stance against corruption, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to upholding integrity within public services, irrespective of the passage of time.
[Read Judgment]
