The prosecution had stated that in 1997, complainant Shaikh Jamshed had furnished Rs 35,000 to MTNL as security against the bills of a telephone booth
The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of an MTNL employee, almost 13 years after he was caught accepting Rs 500 as bribe. Selvaraj Rodrigo will have to serve a sentence of one year. The 52-year-old had taken the money from a phone booth owner for reducing his bank guarantee amount.
Dismissing Rodrigo's appeal, Justice Abhay Thipsay said, "It is true that there were certain weaknesses in the prosecution's case. These might have created serious doubts about the truth of the matter, but for the fact -- fortunately for the prosecution and unfortunately for the accused – that as soon as he received the money, he made an endorsement reducing the amount of the bank guarantee. He also used a different type of ink than previously used."
The prosecution had stated that in 1997, complainant Shaikh Jamshed had furnished Rs 35,000 to MTNL as security against the bills of a telephone booth. His guarantee expired in 2002 and he was called upon to furnish a fresh one. At the time, Rodrigo who was posted at MTNL office in Byculla, told him to pay a guarantee for only six months.
In September the same year, Rodrigo asked Jamshed to renew the bank guarantee. On September 12, when Jamshed requested Rodrigo to reduce the amount of bank guarantee, the latter asked him to pay Rs 1,000 in return. After negotiations, the bribe amount was brought down to Rs 500.
Jamshed immediately approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and lodged a complaint, on the basis of which a trap was laid on September 19, 2002. Rodrigo was nabbed red-handed while accepting the bribe.
During the trial, the prosecution examined over eight witnesses and a special court convicted Rodrigo in 2010. He challenged the order in high court, arguing that the investigating agency did not record the conversation between him and Jamshed at the time of the trap. He also stated that after the registering of the complaint, verification of the initial demand was not done.
Dismissing Rodrigo's contentions, however, Justice Thipsay said, "The theory of the complainant has to be accepted because of the fact that the accused did actually reduce the amount of bank guarantee on September 19, 2002, which the complainant had earlier reported that the accused would not do without taking bribe."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}