16 years on, former station master acquitted in bribery case

THane, A special CBI margaret court in Maharashtra's Thane territorial dominion has not guilty a former send get the hang in a bribery case of 2009, observing the complainant's testimony is not corroborated by any evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Additional Sessions Judge Suryakant S Shinde, in the order on June 9, said the prosecution "miserably failed to prove any of the charges" against Ramkaran Panchuram Meena, who was accused of demanding a bribe from a fruit vendor. A copy of the order was made available on Sunday. According to the prosecution, Vendor Sonu Rashid Raeen had alleged that on June 13, 2009, Diva railway station master Meena demanded a bribe of ₹1,000 per month and an additional ₹5,000 for previous months to allow him to sell fruits in trains and on the station premises in Thane district. The Central Bureau of Investigation laid a trap the same day and claimed to have caught Meena accepting an installment of ₹2,500. Based on the vendor's complaint, Meena was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution's case relied on testimonies of the complainant and a panch witness, and electronic evidence in the form of voice recordings. The court, however, observed the primary proof was the oral testimony of the complainant, which was not supported by any other credible evidence. It also noted that the panch witness never entered the station master's cabin during the alleged demand or the trap, making his testimony unhelpful. The electronic evidence, which could have corroborated the demand and acceptance of the bribe, was found to be unreliable. "After hearing the conversation recorded in the memory card before the court, no conversation is appearing in respect of demand of bribe by the accused and acceptance there of. The conversation is not clearly audible," the judge said. The court also highlighted that the transcripts noted "voice not clear", "train sound" and "noise of train" at several points. Furthermore, the court took a dim view that a certificate under section 65-B of the Evidence Act, essential for admitting electronic evidence, was not filed by the prosecution. The judge also cast doubt on the complainant's credibility. "The complainant was having a grudge against the accused, therefore, implicating of accused in false case cannot be ruled out," the court said. "To sum up the above discussion, from the above observations, it is clear that the oral testimony of the complainant in respect of demand of bribe by the accused and acceptance of it is not corroborated by any evidence brought on record by the prosecution," it said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.