No One in Their Right Senses Demands a Receipt for a Bribe: Bombay High Court Acquits Fisheries Officer in Corruption Case

“The subsidy amount Demand Draft was handed over before any bribe was paid — the sequence of events projected by the prosecution is inherently doubtful” - Bombay High Court, in a reportable judgment by Justice M. M. Sathaye, overturned the conviction of a government officer in a corruption trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that the circumstances gave rise to serious doubt and that the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. In the case titled Manoj Shankar Deshpande vs The State of Maharashtra, the Court set aside the trial court’s verdict which had sentenced the accused to 18 months of imprisonment for allegedly accepting a ₹1500 bribe for releasing a government subsidy.

The central reason for acquittal was the court’s firm conclusion that the prosecution’s version was not only internally inconsistent, but also forensically unsustainable. Justice Sathaye observed, “If the bribe amount was accepted before the DD was handed over, then logically, the DD must have had traces of anthracene. The absence of any such trace falsifies the prosecution’s story.”

“Clean Demand Draft and Demand for Receipt Fatally Undermine Bribery Allegation” – Court Applies Benefit of Doubt to Accused

The Court's judgment delves into two key inconsistencies: the absence of anthracene powder on the Demand Draft (DD) of ₹3000, and the admission by the complainant that he demanded a receipt after handing over the ₹1500. These facts, the Court said, created more than reasonable doubt about whether the payment was actually a bribe.

Justice Sathaye underscored the implausibility of the bribe story with a striking observation:
"No person in his right senses would demand a receipt for a bribe amount... assuming such a receipt is demanded, no government officer would ask for more money and then agree to issue a consolidated receipt for a bribe."

The accused, Manoj Shankar Deshpande, was serving as an Assistant Fisheries Development Officer in Junnar, Pune. The complainant, a fisherman named Baban Maruti Bamble, alleged that Deshpande demanded ₹1500 as a bribe to release a government subsidy of ₹3000. The Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap on 16 May 2001, caught Deshpande with anthracene-smeared notes, and arrested him after recovering the currency from his office drawer.

The complainant claimed that Deshpande made it clear that he would not hand over the subsidy DD without receiving the bribe first. However, the accused argued that the payment was not a bribe, but a legal recovery of licence fees for fishing operations involving multiple fishermen. Deshpande also contended that the complainant had a grudge against him due to earlier departmental action — cancellation of his brother's fishing contract and seizure of boats and nets due to fishing without valid licences.

“Prosecution’s Sequence of Events is Unbelievable”: Court Finds Forensic and Testimonial Gaps

Justice Sathaye methodically dismantled the prosecution’s case, highlighting that according to its own witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and Panch, the subsidy DD was not tainted with anthracene. This, he said, had enormous implications:

"If the sequence of events as stated by the prosecution is correct, the DD, after being handled by the complainant and the accused — both of whom had anthracene on their hands — would have certainly shown bluish shining under ultraviolet light. But it was found completely clean."

The Court thus held that the DD must have been handed over before any bribe amount changed hands, which contradicted the prosecution’s theory that the bribe was a precondition for the release of the subsidy. This, according to the Court, undermined the very foundation of the prosecution's narrative.

“Demand for Receipt Reinforces Legal Recovery Defence”

Even more damaging to the prosecution was the admission by the complainant that he had asked for a receipt for the ₹1500 he gave to Deshpande, and that the officer had asked him to bring an additional ₹500 so that a consolidated receipt for ₹2000 could be issued. The Court described this statement as “fatal” to the prosecution:

"The complainant’s demand for a receipt, and the accused’s alleged response that he would issue one for ₹2000 after receiving the remaining ₹500, strongly support the defence version that this was a payment of legal fees and not a bribe."

Justice Sathaye added that the complainant had further admitted that his fishing net was of ‘Odhap’ type, which required a group licence involving 8 to 10 persons at ₹200 per person — which aligned with the accused’s explanation of the payment.

Trial Court’s Errors: “Failure to Consider Doubt-Raising Evidence”

The Court was also critical of the Special Judge’s handling of the trial. Although the Trial Court noted that the DD was clean and that the defence theory was raised 7–8 months later, it failed to appreciate that:

"Whether the defence is proven or not is not the only issue. What matters is whether the prosecution’s case can survive the serious doubt raised by its own evidence."

The High Court held that even if the accused did not bring independent evidence to prove the legal recovery, the prosecution’s own inconsistencies made it unsafe to convict.

In view of these findings, the Court concluded:

"The aspects of complainant’s admission and the DD having been found clean... creates strong doubt against the case of the prosecution which ought to have been considered by the Trial Judge."

The Court allowed the appeal in full, acquitted the accused of all charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and set aside the Special Judge’s conviction dated 23 July 2004.

Deshpande was directed to execute a Personal Recognizance Bond of ₹15,000 under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure his appearance in case the State prefers an appeal.

Summing up the ruling, Justice Sathaye reiterated:

"In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be given to the Appellant and therefore this is a fit case to interfere."

This judgment serves as a critical precedent on evidentiary standards in corruption cases, particularly those involving trap operations. It emphasizes that circumstantial inconsistencies, forensic evidence, and behavioral improbabilities (like demanding a receipt for a bribe) can and must be weighed rigorously — and if they cast reasonable doubt, acquittal is not just permissible, but necessary.

Date of Decision: 7 November 2025