Md Tasleem Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
------
Md. Tasleem Ahmad, Son of Late Sheikh Mangu, R/o-Aurobindo
Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi
… .... …. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I.
.... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Pragati Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Faisal Allam, Adv.
Ms. Asfia Sultana, Adv.
For the Resp.-C.B.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
Mr. Aryan Anurag, AC to ASGI
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 11.08.2026 Pronounced on 06/11/2026
1. Heard the arguments of learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and
learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the C.B.I.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the above
named sole appellant challenging his conviction and sentence for
the offence under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.C. Case No. 20A of
2013 (R) passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi vide its
th
Judgment and order dated 30 June, 2017 whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been directed to undergo R.I. for
two years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under
Section 7 of P.C. Act; further directed to undergo R.I. for two
years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, with default
stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run, concurrently.
2026:JHHC:32723
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Sushil
Kongari, AC Helper-II, Grade-D of South Eastern Railway,
Hatia, Ranchi filed a written complaint before the C.B.I. stating
inter alia therein that appellant, Assistant Engineer (Electrical),
South Eastern Railway, Hatia, Ranchi who used to take
examination of Group-D (in which grade, the complainant was
posted) for promotion in Group C. Accordingly, the
complainant appeared in examination scheduled to be held for
promotion from Group-D to Group-C. It is alleged that present
appellant for passing the examination, demanded bribe of Rs.
10,000/- from the complainant.
4. Since, the complainant was not desirous to give bribe, he
lodged a written complaint before the C.B.I. and the Sub-
Inspector of C.B.I., A.C.B., Ranchi verified the complaint and
found the allegation prima facie to be true and submitted the
report.
5. On the basis of above complaint, a trap team was constituted
after holding pre-trap formalities. The C.B.I. Officials along
with independent witnesses conducted a raid near Khukhri
Petrol Pump, Doranda, Ranchi. It is alleged that at the time of
trap, the complainant offered the bribe money which was
accepted by the appellant and he was arrested on 27.09.2013
and post-trap memorandum was prepared.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
2
2026:JHHC:32723
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted
against the accused for the offence under section 7 & 13 (2) r/w
13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act 1988 and accordingly, cognizance of
the offence was taken. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
7. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the
appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether (twelve) 12
witnesses:-
P.W.-1 Budhadeo Mazumdar
P.W.-2 Dipti Bhengra
P.W.-3 Sushil Kongari (Complainant)
P.W.-4 P.Uma Shankar Reddy
P.W.-5 Nandan Kumar Vishwakarma
P.W.-6 Om Prakash Hari
P.W.-7 Ramesh
P.W.-8 Panch Ratan Thakur (Shadow Witness)
P.W.-9 Eric W. Ekka
P.W.-10 Anem Xaxa (Independent witness)
P.W.-11 Asish Anand
P.W.-12 S.C. Jha
8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution
has adduced following documentary evidence:-
Ext.-1 Sanction order approved by P.W.-1
Ext.-2 , 2/1 and 2/2 Signature of P.W.-2 on Bottle
D, P R Sent for Examination
Ext. 2/3 to 2/19 Signatures of P.W.-3, P.W.-8 and
P.W.-10 on different M. Exts.
Ext.-2/20 to 2/22 Signature of P.W.-10 on pre-trap
memorandum
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
3
2026:JHHC:32723
Ext. 2/23 to 2/25 Signature of P.W.-10 on different M.
Exts.
Ext.-2/26 Signature of P.W.-10 on arrest
Ext.-2/28 to 2/31 Signature of P.W.-10 on post-
trap memorandum
Ext.-2/32 Signature of P.W.-11 and all concerned on
Demo Wash Bottle
Ext.-2/33 Signature of P.W.-11 and all concerned on
Mat. Ext.-III
Ext.-2/34 Signature of P.W.-11 and all concerned on
Residual of P. Powder
Ext.-2/35 Signature of P.W.-11 and all concerned on
right hand wash of accused
Ext.-2/36 to 2/38 Signature of P.W.-11 and all
concerned on different Mat. Exts.
Ext.-3 CFSL Report
Ext.-4 Complaint Letter
Ext.-5 Question Paper Dt. 12.09.2013 instead of
24.09.2013
Ext.-5/1 to 5/4 Answer Sheet of other four
candidates
Ext.-6 Signature of all on pre-trap memorandum
Ext.-7 and 7/1 Post Trap Memo and Signature of
accused on it.
Ext.-8 and 8/1 Two Letters dated 09.09.2013
Ext.-9 Seizure Memo
Ext.-9/1 Trade Test File along with forwarding
Letter
Ext.-10 F.I.R.
9. The prosecution has also examined following material
exhibits:-
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
4
2026:JHHC:32723
M. Ext.-‘I’ series to ‘X’ are envelope containing cloth,
bottle, piece of paper, residual of phenolphthalein
power, G.C. Notes etc.
10. On the other hand, the defence has also examined two
witnesses:-
D.W.-1 Amir Khan
D.W.-2 Rajni
11. Apart from oral evidence, no documentary evidence has been
adduced on behalf of the defence.
12. The learned trial Court after evaluating the oral as well as
documentary evidence along with material exhibits relied
upon by the prosecution arrived at definite findings of guilt of
the appellant for the offence as stated above which has been
assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellant: -
13. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
of the appellant, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has
raised following grounds:-
P.W.-1 Budhadeo Mazumdar, Joint Secretary, Est.
Railway Board, has proved sanction order granted by
him for prosecuting the appellant who was not
competent to accord sanction for prosecution rather a
officer not below the rank of secretary, Railway Board,
was competent to pass sanction order. In this regard, the
learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
5
2026:JHHC:32723
upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter
of “Nanjappa V. State of Karnataka” (2015) 14 SCC 186.
P.W.-3 Sushil Kongari is the complainant who has given
contradictory statements and his testimony suffers from
material discrepancies and infirmities showing his
malicious intention to involve the appellant in a false
case after publication of final result of the limited
examination.
Admittedly, the result was published on 25.09.2013 and
the complaint was lodged on 26.09.2013. The
complainant in the written test has secured only 19
marks out of 45 marks and qualified marks was 15.
P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 who were also candidates in the said
examination have stated that they declined to pay any
bribe but have been passed.
No preliminary enquiry about truth of the allegation
was conducted by the C.B.I. and F.I.R. was directly
registered. The result of the examination was already
published and the complainant was failed, then, there
was no occasion for appellant to demand and received
any bribe with a view to show any favour to the
complainant in the matter of promotion. There is no
material on record that the complainant was otherwise
eligible to be passed out but due to non-payment of
bribe money, he was deliberately failed.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
6
2026:JHHC:32723
The complainant and shadow witness (P.W. 8) have
failed to prove any demand of bribe by the appellant
and for what purposes. Therefore, trap proceeding itself
was not properly held and the appellant was falsely
implicated showing him taking bribe.
It is settled law that mere recovery of money is not
sufficient to prove guilt of the accused rather demand of
bribe and its acceptance must be proved beyond doubt.
Submissions on behalf of the State-CBI
14. On the other hand, learned A.S.G.I. controverting the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and
aptly considered the vital aspects of the case, scrutinized and
appreciated the evidence of witnesses, pre-trap and post-trap
proceedings including material exhibits and arrived at right
conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges leveled
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also
settled law that if the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification has been proved by the prosecution even through
holding trap, the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act
can be invoked to the effect that illegal gratification was
demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as
contemplated under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The defence has
miserably failed to rebut the aforesaid presumption invoked
against the appellant. Therefore, there is no illegality or
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
7
2026:JHHC:32723
infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence of the appellant and no merits in this appeal which is
fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, reasons and decision :
15. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned
judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of
respective parties.
16. The only point for determination in this appeal is “as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
of the appellant suffers from any error of law, which requires
any interference in this appeal?”
17. Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it is pertinent
to take brief resume of the evidence available on record for
proper adjudication.
P.W.1 Budhadeo Majumdar, Joint Secretary, Est.
Railway Board has accorded sanction order against the
appellant and has deposed that as per Resolution (marked
Ext.-X for identification) of Railway Board, he was the
competent authority to sign the sanction order.
P.W.2 Dipti Bhengra, Sr. Scientific Officer, C.F.S.L.
New Delhi had conducted examination of exhibits sent for
chemical examination. This witness has stated that she
cannot say whether the solution was touched by human
hand.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
8
2026:JHHC:32723
P.W.3 Sushil Kongari is the complainant of this case
and has supported the contents of the complaint and
subsequent verification of the same followed by pre-trap
demonstration by stating that limited examination for
promotion was held on 12.09.2013 and viva voce was to be
held on 13.09.2013 which was conducted by appellant by
asking five to six questions and the candidates were directed
to write their names in the answer sheets and the date of the
viva voce test was directed to write 12.09.2013 instead of
13.09.2013. He further states that the complainant wanted to
know the result and enquired from the appellant, then,
appellant replied that you are failed and the appellant called
the complainant on 24.09.2013 in D.R.M. Office and
demanded Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant for passing in
the limited examination but the complainant express his
incapacity to give the same. The appellant told the
complainant to give the money on 27.09.2013. On 24.09.2013,
appellant gave a paper of 4/5 questions and complainant was
asked to write the answers and directed to mention the date
as 12.09.2013 instead of 24.09.2013. Then, the complainant
made a complaint before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi and the
complainant was interrogated and directed to come at 09:45
am on 27.09.2013. Accordingly, he reached on time and met
with two independent witnesses i.e. P.W.-8 and P.W.-10 and
other raiding members and pre-trap demonstration was
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
9
2026:JHHC:32723
completed and reached at the place of occurrence and were
waiting for appellant who reached at 1:00 PM and
complainant was told to come other side of the Road, the
complainant went there and P.W.-8 Shadow witness followed
the complainant. Then, complainant asked “Sir Mera Iss Baar
Promotion Ho Jayega”. Then, appellant replied “Tum Paisa
Laye Ho To Ho Jayega”. Upon this, complainant replied “Haa
Paisa Laye Hai” and appellant demanded the money by
extending his hand, complainant brought out money from his
upper pocket and gave in the right hand of the appellant who
kept the same in right pocket of his trouser. Complainant
gave signal and then, CBI Team rushed and recovered the
G.C. Notes by Anem Xaxa and tallied the same with the pre-
trap memorandum and completed the further formalities of
post-trap proceedings like washing the hands of the appellant
in the sodium carbonate solution which turned pink and the
same was sealed and prepared seizure list . He further
deposed that shadow witness P.W.-8 overheard and saw the
transaction between both.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he
has not mentioned in the complaint that his Viva Test took
place on 13.09.2013 and he mentioned the date as 12.09.2013
and again took test on 24.09.2013 and date was mentioned as
12.09.2013. He also admits that he had given statement before
the CBI that limited examination held on 12.09.2013 and viva
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
10
2026:JHHC:32723
test should have been done on the same day but took place on
13.09.2013 but the fact that date was not mentioned as
13.09.2013 but mentioned as 12.09.2013 which was suppressed
by the complainant. The complainant at para 67 has deposed
that he had failed earlier also prior to the test held in the year
2013. He further states that appellant had failed the
complainant and for that reason, he was sad. He further
states that this time also, the complainant was afraid of
being failed by the appellant. He also expressed his no
knowledge as he was on leave that the result was submitted
on 25.09.2013 or not but in the test taken by the appellant,
all were passed. He has also declined that due to previous
enmity of not being passed by the appellant, the
complainant has falsely been implicated in this case.
P.W.-4 P . Uma Shankar Reddy , Sr. Section Engr. who
has deposed that there was a limited examination for
promotion of Grade-D to Grade-C in which, the complainant
was also a candidate.
P.W.-5 Nandan Kr. Vishwakarma was posted as
Technician-III in the office of appellant who had typed the
question on the dictation of the appellant which was given to
the candidates for answer.
P.W.-6 Om Prakash Hari was also the candidate of the
examination for promotion and on 23.09.2013, appellant also
demanded Rs. 10,000/- from this witness and told that if the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
11
2026:JHHC:32723
same is not paid, he would be failed but this witness
expressed his incapacity to pay the same.
P.W.-7 Ramesh was also the candidate of the
examination for promotion and this witness states that
when they met with the appellant, he told that you have
failed and for getting passed, demanded Rs. 10,000/- for
promotion.
In his cross-examination, he admits that he had not told
anyone regarding demand of money by the appellant.
P.W.8 Panch Ratan Kumar Thakur is the independent
cum shadow witness posted as Postman in G.P.P., Ranchi.
This witness has deposed that he had gone with the
complainant when the appellant had given signal form the
other side of the road to come where complainant asked
“promotion ho jayega”, then, appellant replied “haa ho
jayega” and said that “Paisa Laye Ho” and appellant
extended his right hand then complainant brought out the
money from his pocket and gave to the appellant who kept in
his right pocket of his trouser. Then, the complainant gave
signal, all the raiding team rushed and caught the appellant.
P.W.9 Eric Ekka, posted in Personal Branch of DRM,
Office, Hatia is a formal witness.
P.W.10 Anem Xaxa is the independent witness, being
one of the members of the raiding party and has proved pre-
trap demonstration and post-trap proceedings.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
12
2026:JHHC:32723
P.W.-11 Ashish Anand is the I.O. of this case who
constituted the trap team with the members of CBI and two
independent witnesses and all the formalities of pre-trap were
completed and got signature of all the members and left for
place of occurrence i.e. Khukhri Petrol Pump Doranda. He
further deposed that Shadow witness P.W.-8 followed the
complainant who asked the appellant that “mera promotion
ho jayega”, then, appellant replied “ paisa laye ho to ho
jayega” and appellant extended his right hand for money, the
complainant took out the same and gave it on the right hand
of the accused who kept the same in his right pocket of
trousers. This witness claims that he had himself seen the
transaction between both and on signal, they reached and
competed post-trap proceedings.
P.W.-12 S.C. Jha is also the I.O. of this case who had
taken statement of the complainant and independent
witnesses and had sent the seized materials for examination
to C.F.S.L. Delhi and had received the sanction order and
submitted charge sheet.
18. On the other hand, defence has also examined two witnesses
namely D.W.-1 Amir Khan and D.W.-2 Rajni who have
deposed that they have only seen the accused being taken
away but does not know who took away.
19. Before adverting to evaluate the aforesaid evidence available
on record, it appears pertinent to extract the relevant
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
13
2026:JHHC:32723
(Prior to Amendment in the year 2018)
“7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official act .— Whoever,
being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or
obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from
any person, for himself or for any other person, any
gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration,
as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any
official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the
exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to
any person or for rendering or attempting to render any
service or disservice to any person, with the Central
Government or any State Government or Parliament or
the Legislature of any State or with any local authority,
corporation or Government company referred to in
clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant,
whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment which shall be not less than six months
but which may extend to five years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanations —(a) “Expecting to be a public servant”.
If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a
gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is
about to be in office, and that he will then serve them,
he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the
offence defined in this section.
(b) “Gratification”. The word “gratification” is not
restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications
estimable in money.
(c) “Legal remuneration”. The words “legal
remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which
a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all
remuneration which he is permitted by the Government
or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.
(d) “A motive or reward for doing”. A person who
receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing
what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or
has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person
erroneously to believe that his influence with the
Government has obtained a title for that person and
thus induces that person to give the public servant,
money or any other gratification as a reward for this
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
14
2026:JHHC:32723
service, the public servant has committed an offence
under this section.”
“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of
criminal misconduct,-
(a)………………….
(b)………………….
(c)………………….
(d) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for
himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,
obtains for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant,
obtains for any person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public interest;
(e)………………….
Explanation:- …………
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall be not less than one year but which
may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.”
20. It is also pertinent to mention relevant judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court in the matter of K.
Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana , [(2022) 4 SCC 574] and
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [ (2023) 4
SCC 731] has held that for recording conviction under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), the prosecution has to first
prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
21. The relevant paragraph number 11 of K. Shanthamma
(Supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-
11. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. [P.
Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
15
2026:JHHC:32723
: (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11] , this Court has summarised the
well-settled law on the subject in para 23 which reads thus :
(SCC p. 159)
“23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus,
is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof,
unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere
acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal
gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of
demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to
bring home the charge under these two sections of the
Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove
the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and
mere recovery of the amount from the person accused
of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would
not entail his conviction thereunder.”
22. Similarly, the relevant paragraph number 88 of Neeraj Dutta
(supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-
“ 88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt
of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of
fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence.
88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
16
2026:JHHC:32723
proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct
oral and documentary evidence.
88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public
servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there
being any demand from the public servant and the latter
simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification,
it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such
a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public
servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a
demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders
the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the
public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification
emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under
Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-
giver and the demand by the public servant respectively
have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In
other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
gratification without anything more would not make it an
offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii),
respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the
Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an
offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted
by the public servant which would make it an offence.
Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when
accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment
made which is received by the public servant, would be an
offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of
the Act.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
17
2026:JHHC:32723
88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand
and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may
be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when
the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and
documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On
the basis of the material on record, the court has the
discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is
subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of
rebuttal presumption stands.
88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns “hostile”, or has
died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial,
demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in
the evidence of any other witness who can again let in
evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the
prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.
The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of
acquittal of the accused public servant.
88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to
raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the
purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said
Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court
as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course,
the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20
does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under
Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact
referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is
a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in
nature.”
23. In the instant case, the evidence of witnesses as discussed
above especially the evidence of P.W.-3, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
18
2026:JHHC:32723
reveals that these three witnesses were the candidates of that
limited examination for promotion and all these three
witnesses had appeared in the test and after completion of
test, they had met with the appellant to know as to whether
they have passed or not, upon this, the appellant had told
them that they all have failed and demanded Rs. 10,000/- for
passing them in the test and all have expressed their
incapacity to pay the same but only P.W.-3 made a complaint
before the S.P., C.B.I., with respect to demand of illegal
gratification by the appellant but as to why other candidates
i.e. P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 had not made any complaint with
regard to allegation of demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the
appellant before the C.B.I. is not clear and best known to
them. It is also revealed that nowhere in the evidence of
witnesses, it has come that complaint was verified by the
C.B.I. officials by interrogating the complainant or other two
candidates who have also been demanded Rs. 10,000/- by the
appellant. It has also come on record that in the previous
examination held before this limited examination for
promotion, the complainant had failed and for that, he was
sad and he was also afraid that this time also, the appellant
would fail them. The complainant in his cross-examination
has declined the suggestion of the defence that due to
previous enmity, he has lodged this complaint. The above
circumstance where three candidates were asked for illegal
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
19
2026:JHHC:32723
gratification as alleged but only one candidate moved before
the S.P., C.B.I. complaining the illegal demand of illegal
gratification by the appellant as alleged but other two not,
leads to suspicion or malicious intent of the complainant to
implicate the appellant falsely in this case due to previous
enmity. It is also revealed that result had already been
published on 25.09.2013 and the complaint was filed on
26.09.2013, it is utter surprising that when the result has been
published and the complainant has been declared failed, then,
why the appellant would demand any illegal gratification for
passing the complainant in the limited examination wherein
the appellant had no any power to change the result in order
to get the appellant passed in the limited examination for
promotion by taking the illegal gratification as alleged, and
this fact goes to show the ill-motive of the complainant
leading to filing a malicious complaint on very next date of
the declaration of the result to teach a lesson to the appellant
as the complainant has himself admitted that he was afraid of
being failed by the appellant because he was also declared
failed in previous limited examination and for that reason, he
was sad. C.B.I. Officials, without verifying the complaint
properly, completed the formalities of pre-trap and post-trap
and arrested the appellant finding the G.C.Notes in the
possession of the appellant.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
20
2026:JHHC:32723
24. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of
currency notes from an accused without proof of demand
would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as
Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case o f P.
Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State
of A.P. and Anr. reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 has held in
para 22 and 2 3 are reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:-
“22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the
imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it
has been underlined in B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.,
(2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] in unequivocal
terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes
from an accused without proof of demand would not
establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in
the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification,
the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a
public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand,
thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of
permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13
of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a
presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while
it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to
those under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, it is
contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal
gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act.
Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was
emphasised, could follow only if there was proof of demand.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
21
2026:JHHC:32723
Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of
demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act
would also not arise.
23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the
gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the
charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount
allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof,
dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be
sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections
of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to
provethe demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and
mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the
offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his
conviction thereunder.” (Emphasis Supplied)”
26. Therefore, there is complete absence of any demand of bribe
made by the accused and its acceptance as alleged by the
complainant.
27. In the above factual background, the ingredients of either
offence under Section 7 & 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is absolutely not
attracted against the appellant. The learned trial Court has
believed the testimony of the witnesses only on conjecturing
and the observations of the learned trial Court are absolutely
beyond the record. The totality of circumstances as proved by
the prosecution clearly proves the innocence of the appellant.
28. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I find substance
in the above points of argument raised on behalf of the
appellant and merits in this appeal. Accordingly, impugned
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
22
2026:JHHC:32723
judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant
is hereby set aside and he is acquitted from the charges
leveled against him.
29. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the
liabilities of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged.
30. In result, this appeal is allowed.
31. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
32. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 06/11/2026
Basant / AFR
Uploaded On: 06/11/2026
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1287 of 2017
23