The corridors of the Supreme Court witnessed a rare moment of judicial incredulity this week when a bench was informed that currency notes seized as evidence in a bribery case had allegedly been consumed by rodents. The Bihar Police's submission—that the "bribe money was eaten by rats"—left the justices surprised and raised serious questions regarding the protocols for managing evidence in police custody.
​The case involves a long-standing investigation into corruption where a substantial amount of cash was recovered and placed in a police 'Malkhana' (the designated storehouse for seized property). When the time came to produce the physical evidence before the court, the authorities presented a report claiming the notes were no longer available due to a rodent infestation.
​The Supreme Court bench, while reviewing the matter, found the explanation hard to reconcile with standard administrative procedures. The court questioned how such a large quantity of paper currency could be completely destroyed without any negligence on the part of the officers in charge of the facility. This incident has now cast a spotlight on the systemic issues plaguing "Malkhana" management across various states, where crucial evidence—ranging from cash and narcotics to weapons—is often reported as lost, damaged, or stolen.
​Historically, "rodent-related losses" have been a recurring, albeit widely ridiculed, excuse in Indian administrative reports. From liquor bottles "leaking" or being "drunk by rats" to sensitive documents being "nibbled away," the judiciary has often viewed such claims with high suspicion, frequently interpreting them as a cover for misappropriation or criminal negligence.
​In this specific instance, the Supreme Court has indicated that the loss of evidence does not merely affect the logistics of the trial but strikes at the heart of the prosecution's case. If the primary "corpus delicti" (the body of the crime) is missing, it creates significant hurdles in proving the guilt of the accused. The court remarked on the necessity of modernized, secure, and pest-proof storage facilities to ensure that the integrity of a criminal trial is not compromised by such avoidable "accidents."
​The incident has also prompted a broader discussion on the digitization of seized currency and the immediate deposit of cash into government accounts rather than keeping physical notes in damp, aging police stations for years. Legal experts suggest that a "Pre-Trial Disposal" of currency—where notes are photographed, serial numbers recorded, and the money then converted into a fixed deposit—could prevent such bizarre claims from recurring.
​As the Bihar government faces the court’s scrutiny, the police department may be required to conduct an internal inquiry to determine if the "rats" in question were indeed biological or metaphorical. The Supreme Court's reaction serves as a stern reminder that the state is a trustee of seized evidence and must be held accountable for its safekeeping.
​In conclusion, while the "rats eating money" claim might sound like a script from a satire, its implications for the Indian legal system are grave. It highlights the urgent need for judicial and police reforms in evidence handling. For the moment, the Bihar Police must provide a more scientifically and legally sound explanation to satisfy the highest court in the land, as the "rodent defense" appears to have found no takers on the bench.