The Supreme Court on Saturday granted bail to a woman convicted in a corruption case and stayed her sentence, while sharply questioning an unusual finding that seized bribe money had been destroyed by rodents.
In doing so, the court signalled concern over how evidence was handled in the case, after the Patna High Court had relied on records despite the physical currency not being produced.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan remarked, “We are taken by surprise that the currency notes got destroyed…,” reacting to the High Court’s observation about the missing bribe amount.
The case relates to Aruna Kumari, a Child Development Programme Officer (CDPO) in Bihar, who was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹10,000. She was booked under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Trial court acquittal overturned by High Court
The trial court had earlier cleared her of all charges, but the Patna High Court later overturned that decision, holding her guilty and handing down separate jail terms of four years and three years under different sections of the law.
A major point of contention before the High Court was the missing bribe money. The prosecution told the court that the seized cash could not be produced because it had allegedly been destroyed by rodents while kept in storage. Still, official entries in the malkhana register confirmed that the amount had been deposited, and the court chose to rely on those records.
The High Court held that the non-production of the currency notes did not weaken the case, relying on documentary evidence to uphold the conviction.
Supreme Court flags concern over missing evidence
Hearing the matter on Saturday, the Supreme Court took note of this aspect and expressed surprise at the explanation offered regarding the missing money. While granting bail to Kumari, the court also suspended her sentence pending further proceedings.
The order gives the accused some breathing room for now, even as the court’s sharp questions keep the spotlight firmly on how the evidence was handled and assessed.