Is it possible to recover a bribe seven years after the incident? The Delhi High Court rules that the argument has "no force" and grants bail to a PWD employee In February 2014, a government official was accused of requesting and receiving a bribe in exchange for clearing a contractor's invoices. Dig Vinay Singh, Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Bureau), stated that the FIR had been filed for more than seven years, and hence the investigative agency's claim that the bribe amount or any document was still missing had no merit. In February 2014, a Public Works Department officer was suspected of requesting and receiving a bribe in exchange for clearing a contractor's invoices. Rajender Datt Vashishta worked as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) in PWD at Maharishi Valmiki Hospital, Bawana Road, Delhi, according to case records.
He is accused of demanding and receiving $24,000 from a contractor named Sunil Chaudhary in order to pay his expenses. On February 26, 2014, and again on March 1, 2014, Chaudhary allegedly conducted a "sting operation" that was allegedly shown on a news station on March 22, 2014. Following the airing of the sting, the zone's Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department filed a complaint, prompting the ACB of the Delhi Police to file a FIR on March 24, 2014. Because the sting operation involved distinct public officials and transactions, several FIRs claiming separate offences were filed. It was also brought to the attention of the Court that the IO had only issued the accused two notifications, on April 16, 2021, and July 8, 2021, respectively, against which the accused appeared before the agency on July 19, 2021. The court noted that “neither of the two notifications given by the IO to the accused mentions anything being seized from the accused, notably the bribe amount or any other document,” according to the court.
Even so, the court believed that Chaudhary had filed his invoices for clearance in the PWD office, for which the claimed bribe was requested, as per the investigation agency's evidence. “Those documents relevant to the bills can always be collected from the office and must have been collected by now,” the order stated, “and there is no justification offered by the IO to state that those documents are with the accused, and if so, which specific document was not found in the office file or is with the accused.”
Tags : #BRIBE #PWD #PWD EMPLOYEE #DELHI HIGH COUTR #HIGH COURT