‘CBI should look further,inquiry only skin-deep’

Reading out the judgment,Special Judge Jagdeep Jain said: “It is reiterated that the CBI trap proceedings do not inspire confidence. When the irregularities are not merely cosmetic but skin deep,it becomes a cause for concern. The manner in which the case was handled by the trap officer indicates that no precautions were taken against false implication. The accused were served liquor and when they were under its influence,money was passed over.”

Earlier,acting on a complaint by transporter Pawan Kumar,CBI claimed to have caught general manager J S Bindra and sales manager D B Malhotra of Modern Food Industries,then a public undertaking,‘red-handed’ while accepting a bribe of Rs 25,000 on February 18,2000.

Kumar,who used to transport bread manufactured by the company to Shimla,had complained that Bindra and Malhotra were demanding Rs 27,000 for releasing his truck,which they had “forcibly” confiscated. Following this the CBI had laid a trap at Hotel Metro and claimed to have caught Bindra accepting Rs 10,000 and sales manager accepting Rs 15,000 as bribe. However,both were acquitted after Special Judge Jain noted several “loopholes” in the CBI investigation.

Even the nine witnesses produced by the prosecution could not help the case in the CBI court. It was revealed that the complainant owed more than Rs 2.5 lakh to Modern Food Industry and had planned the trap after company officials confiscated his truck. The company has since turned a private enterprise after the government sold 74 per cent of its shares to Hindustan Lever Ltd.

“It’s quite strange that despite having the information that the complainant owed more than Rs 2.5 lakh,the CBI did not try to look further into the matter,” said the court adding that the duty of CBI is just not to lay traps but also to find out if there is any motive to implicate the accused. The court also noted that it was impossible to believe that the complainant never cried foul when he realised that the payment he had made to the company towards the sale of the bread did not reflect in company’s books. Kumar had claimed he had made entire payment of the sale of bread but nothing was shown on record.

The court ruled: “Mere recovery of money is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.”

Another “twist in the tale”,as described in the judgment,is that the accused were under heavy influence of liquor when money was thrust on to them. “Money was passed to them one-and-a-half hour after they sat with the complainant over drinks,when they were down four large pegs of whiskey. It will be difficult to hold that they consciously accepted bribe,” the court ruled adding that even the medical examination report was not brought on record to hide this fact.

“Serious doubts cannot be termed as small holes. When the background of the case is doubtful and evidence to demand and conscious acceptance fails to inspire confidence in court,a mere recovery from a public servant is meaningless and the question of conspiracy does not arise,” said the judge.