Srinagar, March 23, KNT: A Special Anti-Corruption Court in Srinagar has delivered judgment in a long-pending bribery case against a former revenue official, detailing a trap operation in which ₹20,000 was allegedly accepted to influence a land dispute, according to court records.
The case pertains to Mohd Akram Khan, then Tehsildar Chadoora in Budgam district, who was prosecuted by the Vigilance Organisation Kashmir (now Anti-Corruption Bureau) following a complaint of bribery.
The development is significant as it highlights the functioning of anti-corruption mechanisms in Jammu and Kashmir, including trap procedures, witness testimonies and forensic evidence used in such cases.
According to the judgment, the complainant had alleged that the accused demanded ₹20,000 to decide a land dispute in his favour. Following the complaint, vigilance authorities organised a trap operation to catch the official in the act.
Officials prepared forty currency notes of ₹500 denomination and treated them with phenolphthalein powder, a chemical used to detect handling of tainted money. A demonstration was conducted before the complainant and a neutral witness to explain the procedure.
The trap team then proceeded to the accused’s residence in Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, where the complainant, accompanied by the witness, met the official.
As per the prosecution case, the accused accepted the bribe amount and placed it under a pillow in his room. The complainant then gave a pre-arranged signal, following which the vigilance team entered the premises.
During the operation, officials recovered the tainted currency notes from beneath the pillow. The accused’s hand wash was taken in a sodium carbonate solution, which reportedly turned pink, indicating contact with the treated notes.
“The colour of the solution turned pink,” a witness stated during the trial, describing the post-trap procedure conducted on the spot.
Investigators also seized documents and prepared recovery and seizure memos, while statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under relevant legal provisions.
However, the trial also saw conflicting testimony, with at least one witness during cross-examination denying that any demand for a bribe had been made, introducing a key element of contest in the case.
The prosecution argued that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were established through documentary evidence, witness accounts and chemical analysis, while the defence sought to question the consistency of testimonies and the circumstances of the recovery.
The case was registered under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant sections of the penal code, and proceeded through detailed examination of witnesses and evidence over several years.
The judgment, delivered forms part of a broader set of cases pursued by anti-corruption agencies targeting public officials accused of misuse of office for personal gain. [KNT]
