Archive · 10 Sep 2026
Gujarat High Court Acquits Policemen in 27-Year-Old Bribe Case
Two policemen were accused of asking an auto-rickshaw driver for a bribe after an accident.
The driver said he had already paid part of the money and owed Rs 100 more.
He reported the matter to anti-corruption officers instead of paying the remaining amount.
The officers marked some notes with a special powder and used them in a trap.
However, witnesses later gave different stories about what happened during the trap.
One witness said the accused did not demand or accept the money, while another gave a different account.
The Gujarat High Court said prosecutors must clearly prove both a demand and acceptance of a bribe.
Because that proof was missing, the court acquitted both policemen.
The Gujarat High Court acquitted Assistant Sub Inspector Dayashankar Tripathi and another policeman in a Rs 100 bribe case.
The case arose after an auto-rickshaw struck a cyclist in Gujarat’s Patan district in January 1999.
The prosecution alleged that Tripathi demanded Rs 1,500, later reduced to Rs 900, including a remaining Rs 100 payment.
The High Court found contradictory testimony about who demanded, handled, or accepted the anthracene-treated currency notes.
The court ruled that recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance.
- Who
- Assistant Sub Inspector Dayashankar Tripathi and another policeman were acquitted; the complaint was made by auto-rickshaw operator Bhanuprasad Oza.
- What
- The Gujarat High Court overturned their convictions in a Prevention of Corruption Act case involving an alleged remaining Rs 100 bribe.
- When
- The alleged incident occurred in January 1999, and the High Court judgment was dated August 31.
- Where
- The incident and original case involved Patan district, with the complaint filed at the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Mehsana.
- Why
- The court found contradictory witness accounts and insufficient proof that a bribe had been demanded and voluntarily accepted.
Prosecution’s Allegations
High Court’s Findings
Demand and payment
Prosecution’s Allegations
The prosecution said Tripathi threatened seizure of the rickshaw and arrest, demanded money, and later sent a policeman to collect the remaining Rs 100.
High Court’s Findings
The court found that the witnesses did not consistently establish who demanded or accepted the money.
Trap operation
Prosecution’s Allegations
Anti-corruption officers said the policemen were caught with anthracene-treated notes during a planned trap.
High Court’s Findings
The court held that merely recovering marked currency was not enough because the evidence about voluntary acceptance was unreliable.
Witness testimony
Prosecution’s Allegations
The prosecution relied on Bhanuprasad Oza and a shadow witness to support its case.
High Court’s Findings
The court noted that Oza said the first accused neither demanded nor accepted money, while the shadow witness provided a different account.
- Accused
- Assistant Sub Inspector Dayashankar Tripathi and another policeman
- Alleged bribe
- The prosecution alleged a demand of Rs 1,500, negotiated to Rs 900, with Rs 100 allegedly remaining.
- Original incident
- An auto-rickshaw struck a cyclist in Patan district in January 1999.
- Evidence issue
- Witnesses gave conflicting accounts about the demand, refusal, handling, and acceptance of the money.
- Legal principle
- Proof of both demand and acceptance is required before the legal presumption of guilt can arise under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- High Court ruling
- The convictions and sentences were quashed, and the policemen were ordered to be set free.
- Timeline discrepancy
- The report’s opening refers to a 1999 lower-court sentence, while its later account says the Special Judge convicted the policemen in 2005.