New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has expressed profound skepticism over a claim that currency notes seized from a Bihar government officer convicted of corruption were destroyed by rodents while in police custody. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan voiced their disbelief regarding the poor storage conditions at the police malkhana (evidence room), where the recovered bribe money was kept. The court noted that such destruction represents a significant revenue loss for the State and remarked that the explanation offered for the disappearance of the evidence “does not inspire any confidence.”
The case involves a woman who was serving as a Child Development Programme Officer in 2014 when she was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of 10,000 INR. While a trial court had initially acquitted her of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Patna High Court later reversed that decision, sentencing her to up to four years of rigorous imprisonment. Despite the physical destruction of the currency notes, the High Court had ruled that an accused could still be convicted if surrounding circumstances pointed to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, comparing the situation to cases where a corpus delicti is destroyed by offenders.
However, the Supreme Court has decided to take a closer look at the administrative failure regarding the preservation of case property. In an order dated April 24, the top court suspended the officer’s sentence and ordered her release on bail, pending a more detailed hearing on the main matter. The bench emphasized that the issue of evidence being “eaten by rats” is a serious concern that the judiciary cannot ignore, as it raises questions about how many other seizures are similarly compromised due to negligence.
The court’s intervention highlights a recurring issue in the Indian legal system concerning the mismanagement of evidence in police warehouses. The bench intends to examine the systemic failure that allows for the destruction of vital case property, which not only affects the prosecution’s case but also results in the loss of public funds. The matter will be further scrutinized when the court takes up the substantive appeal against the High Court’s conviction.
