Nagpur Today: The Special Court of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nagpur, has acquitted Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Senior Section Engineer (LOCO) with the Railways, in a corruption case involving alleged illegal gratification linked to the supply of locomotive brake shoes by a Kolkata-based company.
The court, presided over by Special Judge Shrikant Padmakar Gondhalekar, acquitted Sharma of charges under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d), of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution had alleged that Sharma was involved in an arrangement to receive illegal gratification from office-bearers of Riddhi Siddhi Udyog Limited in exchange for an inspection certificate related to railway brake shoes.
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses during the trial. The defence challenged the legality of telephone interception, the reliability of electronic evidence and the alleged connection between Sharma and the financial transactions cited by the CBI.
CBI Alleged Bribery in Railway Brake Shoe Supply
According to the prosecution, Riddhi Siddhi Udyog Limited, Kolkata, had received a work order to supply brake shoes for railway locomotives. Based on confidential information, the CBI alleged that representatives of the company had discussed illegal gratification with Sharma in connection with an inspection certificate for the supplied products.
The agency claimed that it obtained permission from the Union Government to intercept calls and messages exchanged between company representatives and the accused. The CBI alleged that the recorded conversations contained discussions about illegal payments.
The prosecution further claimed that, following these conversations, an amount equivalent to one per cent of the transaction value was deposited into a bank account allegedly belonging to Sharma’s son.
The CBI subsequently prosecuted Sharma and two office-bearers of the company under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to criminal conspiracy.
Defence Challenges Telephone Tapping
Advocate Prakash Naidu, representing Sharma, argued that the prosecution’s reliance on intercepted telephone conversations raised serious questions concerning the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The defence submitted that telephone interception must comply with the applicable legal provisions and safeguards. It argued that the statutory conditions governing interception, including the relevant requirements concerning public emergency or public safety, could not be bypassed.
According to the defence, the CBI had failed to establish compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements governing telephone interception. The defence also questioned whether the mobile phones and SIM cards used for the alleged conversations had been conclusively linked to the accused.
It argued that without establishing ownership and use of the relevant telephone connections, the recordings could not reliably establish the accused’s involvement in the alleged offence.
Prosecution’s Claim Regarding Bank Account Questioned
The defence also challenged the alleged transfer of money into the bank account said to belong to Sharma’s son.
Advocate Naidu argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary connection between the account holder and the accused, including proof that the account holder was Sharma’s biological son.
The defence maintained that the alleged deposit, without proof of the necessary links connecting it to Sharma and the alleged conspiracy, could not establish criminal liability.
Defence Says RITES Handled Quality Certification
A central argument raised during the trial concerned Sharma’s alleged role in inspecting or certifying the railway brake shoes.
The defence relied on the cross-examination of railway employees and investigating officers, arguing that the evidence did not establish that Sharma had authority over the inspection or certification process.
According to the defence, RITES (Rail India Technical and Economic Service), an independent agency appointed by the Railways, was responsible for assessing the quality of the supplied products.
The defence submitted that 95 per cent of the payment due to Riddhi Siddhi was released after the RITES certificate was issued. The company was then required to supply the goods to the railway stores department, where the store manager checked the quantity and relevant documentation before the remaining five per cent was released.
On this basis, the defence argued that Sharma had no role in issuing the quality certificate or facilitating the release of payments to the company.
Electronic Evidence Also Challenged
The defence further questioned the procedures followed by the investigating agency in handling electronic devices and recordings. Advocate Naidu argued that the relevant procedures did not comply with the applicable legal requirements and that the alleged conversations could not be relied upon without establishing their legal validity and evidentiary reliability.
After considering the evidence and arguments presented during the trial, the Special CBI Court acquitted Sharma of the charges.
Advocates Prakash Naidu, Surabhi Naidu (Godbole), Mitesh Singh Bais, Homesh Chauhan, Dhruv Sharma, Nupur Agrawal, Bhagyashree Parate, Jagruti Patil and Ananya Chandak represented the accused. Advocate Sumedh Wankhede appeared for the CBI.
The acquittal marks the conclusion of the trial against Sharma in the case. The detailed written judgment would provide the court’s precise findings and legal grounds for the decision.
