S.RAMAN vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIO
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
------
S. Raman, Son of Sri. Ramanuj Prasad, R/o-2B/20 Gandhi Nagar,
P.S.-Gonda, Dist.-Ranchi … .... …. Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation through its S.P., Ranchi
.... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Dhruva Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-C.B.I. : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Kaushiki Sandwar, AC to ASGI
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 31.08.2026 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(1) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.C. Case No. 13A of
1995 (R) passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi vide its
th
Judgment and order dated 30 May, 2005 whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been directed to undergo R.I. for
two years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation for
the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act; further directed to
undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default
stipulation for the offence under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. All
the sentences were directed to run, concurrently.
2026:JHHC:32727
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the
informant Shri Subrato Mukherjee, Propritor of M. S. Elsias
Sales Company, Kanke Road, Ranchi lodged a written
complaint before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi stating inter alia
therein that firm of the informant had supplied certain
electrical items to the E&M Department of C. C. L., Ranchi
against rate contract in the year 1991-92 and submitted bills
thereof in the office of the Dy. Chief Engineer (E & M), C. C. L.
for payment. It is further alleged that the informant got
information by the office of the Dy. Chief Engineer, E & M, C.
C. L. that the bill submitted by the informant were misplaced
as such the informant was directed to submit duplicate bills.
Thereafter the informant submitted duplicate bills with a
certificate of non-payment and after submission of the
duplicate bills, the payment of the informant was not realized,
then, the informant contacted Shri S. Raman, Senior Executive,
E & M in-charge, Dy. Chief Engineer, E & M, C. C. L.,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi to get the bills realized, still the bills
were not passed due to some reasons. Then, the informant
again met Shri Raman on 21.05.1995 at his residence and
requested him for payment of bills, upon this, the appellant
told the informant that he has seen the pending bill of the
informant and stated that out of the total pending bills, initially
he will initiate payment against one set consisting of 7 bills
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
2
2026:JHHC:32727
amounting to Rs. 11,600/- approximately for processing the
same, demanded Rs. 1500/- and told to come to his residence
with a sum of Rs. 1500/- on 23.05.1995 at about 7.00 P.M.
4. The informant was not willing to pay the bribe hence, he
approached the S.P., C. B.I., Ranchi to take necessary action
against the appellant and filed a complaint.
5. After receipt of the written complaint, S. P., C. B.I., SPE, Ranchi
directed Shri N. Jha, Dy. S. P. to verify the allegation made in
the complaint. Shri N. Jha, Dy. S. P. interrogated the
complainant Shri Subrato Mukherjee and found the allegation
prima facie to be true. Thereafter a case being R. C. Case No.
13(A)/95 (R) was registered on 23.05.1995 under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigation of the
same allegation was entrusted to Shri N. Jha, Dy. S. P., C. B.I.,
Ranchi.
6. Accordingly, to apprehend the appellant red-handed while
demand and accepting the bribe from the complainant, the I.O.
constituted a trap team including two independent witnesses
namely Shri Nand Kumar Gupta, Inspector, Central Excise
Department and Shri E. Sanga, Inspector, Income Tax
Department and other C. B.I. Personnels. All the members of
the trap team and the complainant Subrato Mukherjee
assembled in the office of Dy. S. P., C.B.I., Ranchi at about 5.00
P.M. of 23.05.1995. Shri N. Jha, Dy. S. P. introduced everybody
with each other and explained the purpose of the assemblages
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
3
2026:JHHC:32727
and the complaint lodged by the informant Subrato Mukherjee
was explained to both the independent witnesses who went
through the same. Thereafter Dy. S. P. Shri N. Jha explained
the procedure of laying the trap to all present. The use of
Phenolphthalein Powder during the trap was also explained
verbally as well as through a practical demonstration along
with reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the solution of
the sodium carbonate. Shri Subrato Mukherjee produced 15
number of denominations of 100 rupees and the number of
G.C. Notes were recorded in the pre trap memorandum and
the said note was properly treated with phenolphthalein
powder and the same was given back to Shri Subrato
Mukherjee with a direction to keep the same and to hand over
the accused on his demand as bribe. Shri Subrato Mukherjee
kept the tainted G.C. notes in pocket of his shirt. After
completing the formalities of the trap and preparation of the
pre trap memorandum, they left C.B.I. office at about 7.00 P.M.
in two vehicles for the residence of accused S. Raman at
Gandhi Nagar and reached their at about 7.15 P.M. The trap
team of the C.B.I. caught hold the accused Shri S. Raman while
taking bribe of Rs. 1500/- on 23.05.1995 and the same was
allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused which
were tallied with pre trap memorandum and his hands were
dipped in the solution which turned pink and after completing
the post-trap formalities, the appellant was arrested.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
4
2026:JHHC:32727
7. 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 vide order dated 26.03.1996. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the
appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether (twelve) 12
witnesses:-
P.W.-1 Subrato Mukherjee (Complainant)
P.W.-2 Nand Kishore Gupta
P.W.-3 Ashok Kumar Bandhopadhy
P.W.-4 Eman Sanga
P.W.-5 Shaibal Kumar Das
P.W.-6 Basant Kumar Manjhi
P.W.-7 S.M. Chaudhary
P.W.-8 Gautam Biswas
P.W.-9 Binod Kumar
P.W.-10 Prasanjeet Kumar Sengupta
P.W.-11 Bimlendra Das
P.W.-12 Narayan Jah
9. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution
has adduced following documentary evidence:-
Ext.-1 to 12 series are Supply of Orders at different
dates and their duplicates bills/bills and their challans
Ext.-13 is forwarding letter
Ext.-14 to 14/4 are pre-trap memorandum
Ext.-14 to 15 series of signature and endorsement of
complainant and other witnesses on memorandum,
envelope and material exhibits.
Ext.-16 to 16-B are office notes in two sheets.
Ext.-17-Sanction Order
Ext.-18 Notice dated 12.03.1995
Ext.-19 is letter No. CTM(01)/95/22095 Dt. 22.02.1995
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
5
2026:JHHC:32727
Ext.-20 to 20/2 series are office note and signature of
witnesses
Ext.-21 Report of Forensic Science Laboratory
Ext.-22 Forwarding Letter
Ext.-23 to 23/3 are signatruer of witnesses on four
letters
Ext.-24 and 24/1 are verification report and
endorsement upon verification report
Ext.-25 is formal F.I.R.
Ext.-26 is pre-trap memorandum
Ext.-27 is memorandum of recovery
Ext.-28 to 28/2 are copies of seizure list.
10. The prosecution has also examined following material
exhibits:-
M. Ext.-‘I’ series to ‘X’ are bottle, sealed envelope, G.C.
Notes and T-shirt and signatures of complainant on
bottle, envelope.
11. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced on
behalf of the defence, apart from following documentary
evidence:-
Ext.-A to A/1 Note sheet with signature of the
appellant
Ext. –A/2 Extra Copy of receipt of same
documents/bills
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: -
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
6
2026:JHHC:32727
13. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
of the appellant, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has
vehemently argued and raised following grounds:-
It is submitted that complainant who is the author of the
written complaint and sole witness to the alleged demand, in
his examination-in-chief has stated that whatever was stated
in the complaint was not true. Therefore, the complainant has
been declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he has
further admitted that he has not stated before the C.B.I. that
the appellant had demanded Rs. 1500/- but the complainant
had brought “as per his wish” and he had not handed over
the same in the hands of the appellant. Therefore, the version
of the complainant himself demolished the case of the
prosecution which disowns the very genesis and foundation
of the charge under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
It is further submitted that neither of the two independent
witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed about
any conversation of demand having taken place between the
complainant and the appellant and P.W.-2 confined his
testimony to the effect that he had seen only the complainant
giving money at the Varandah.
It is further submitted that in trap cases, the evidence of
shadow witnesses plays a pivotal role to demonstrate the
demand and the complete absence of such evidence by the
shadow leads no reality in the allegation of demand by the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
7
2026:JHHC:32727
appellant where the complainant has also been declared
hostile.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
in view of the above grounds and in the light of settled law of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Shanthamma Vs.
State of Telangana that proof of demand is the sine qua non
of an offence under Section 7 and 13(2) of P.C. Act as well as
the fact that there was no occasion for any demand as the
bills stood already processed, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable in the eye
of law which is liable to be set aside.
Submissions on behalf of the 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, 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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
8
2026:JHHC:32727
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 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 Subarto Mukherjee is the complainant of this
case who has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
According to this witness, when the post-trap team reached at
the place of occurrence, the complainant rang the bell of the
door of the appellant, upon this, the appellant opened the
gate and told to sit on a steel chair. Further, this witness
deposed that after sitting, both the them exchanged wishes
to each other and the complainant told the appellant that
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
9
2026:JHHC:32727
complainant is in trouble and in urgent need of money and
requested the appellant to pass the bills. Upon this, the
appellant replied that he has already told the complainant
that he will first forward first set of bills. Thereafter, the
complainant said that anyhow please pass the bills and the
complainant brought out the G.C. Notes and keep the same
in the pocket of appellant a nd gave signal, upon this, the
raiding party rushed and disclosed the identity being C.B.I.
Officials.
From the deposition of the complainant, it appears
that there was no demand made by the appellant rather the
complainant himself put the G.C. Notes in the pocket of the
appellant without any demand.
In his cross-examination, this witness has expressed no
knowledge during recording of statement before the I.O. (Sri
N. Jha) that appellant had enquired about the money which
he had asked for from the complainant and would pass the
bills of the complainant only on payment of bribe money of
Rs. 1500/-. This witness has also expressed no knowledge
before the I.O. that as per the demand of the appellant, the
complainant has brought the bribe money. This witness has
himself given a contradictory statement in his deposition by
saying on the one hand that he had kept the money in the
pocket of the appellant and on the other hand, he admits that
he has given the money in the hands of the appellant who
counted the same and kept in his pocket.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
10
2026:JHHC:32727
P.W.2 Nand Kumar Gupta and P.W.-4 E. Sanga are the
independent witnesses-cum-members of raiding party and
have witnessed the pre-trap proceeding and the post-trap
proceedings who have deposed that complainant rang the
bell of the door and entered and this witness along with
Narayan Jha got position at the door which was half-opened
and were able to see Verahnda where both the complainant
and accused were sitting and both of them were talking about
bill clearance and appellant demanded money, then,
complainant gave the same in the right hand of the appellant
and the same were counted and kept in the left pocket of T-
shirt and by coughing gave signal, all the raiding party
reached there and challenged the appellant for having
demanded bribe, upon, this the appellant got nervous and
after completing post-trap proceedings like washing hands
leading to reaction of solution, sealing, preparing seizure list
and other further formalities. Narayan Jha arrested the
appellant.
Thus neither of two independent (Shadow) witnesses
i.e. P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 had deposed any conversation of
demand having been made by the appellant.
P.W.3 Ashok Kumar Bandopadhyay is also an
employee of CCL who has proved the supply order made by
the firm of the complainant on different dates through
.
different bills received by the employee of the C.C.L
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
11
2026:JHHC:32727
P.W.5 Shaibal Kr. Das is the formal witness who has
proved the sanction order stating that he had typed the same
on the dictation of R.K. Sen, C.M.C. who has also put his
signature which this witness identifies.
P.W.6 Basant Kumar Manjhi is also an employee of the
C.C.L who has deposed that appellant was the competent
authority to pass the bills and bills were passed after the raid
of C.B.I.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the
bills of the complainant were in process of payment and the
bills which were submitted by the complainant was not
attached with the required documents and that was the
reason for keeping the bills in process . This witness further
admits that the appellant had processed the bills with no
objection but the same got returned and appellant pass the
same on Sri Satish Prahasan and accordingly the bill was
pending before Sri Prahasan.
P.W.7 S. M. Choudhary and P.W.-9 Binod Kumar are
the employees of the C.C.L who have deposed that the bills of
1991-92 were pending and also found that there were lack of
information, then , P.W.-7 advised that after linking up the
previous challans and supply order and after approval of
competent authority, the payment should be made and due
to old bills, the same were also required to be approved by
the C.G.M.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
12
2026:JHHC:32727
P.W.8 Gautam Biswas, employee of the C.C.L. has
deposed that has proved the claim letter given by the
complainant for his pending bills which was endorsed by the
appellant and this witness was directed by the appellant to
put up the bills before the appellant after examination of the
challan and after scrutinizing the same, a note sheet was
prepared by this witness and endorsed to Executive Engineer
(E&M) Maintenance and Executive Engineer marked the
appellant.
P.W.10 Prasanjeet Kumar Sengupta, the then
Chairman-cum-Managing Director Coal India Ltd. has
accorded sanction order.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not
remember that the steno had noted down his dictation in long
or short-hand and this witness accorded the sanction without
making any enquiry by himself.
P.W.-11 Bimlendra Das was posted as Junior Scientific
Officer, Central Forensic Sc. Laboratory (C.F.S.L) and this
witness was marked for chemical reaction and report thereof
by the Director, C.F.S.L.
P.W.-12 Narayan Jha, Dy. S.P. C.B.I. Ranchi is the
verifying officer of the complaint. This witness has stated that
he had verified the allegation by interrogating the
complainant only and submitted verification report dated
23.05.1995 to S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi. He has further deposed
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
13
2026:JHHC:32727
regarding formalities which were completed in the pre-trap
demonstration and has further deposed that the appellant
had enquired from the complainant as to where the
complainant had brought Rs. 1500 as demanded.
Complainant replied in affirmative and the complainant took
out the tainted G.C. Notes and paid the same to appellant in
the right hand and by counting, the appellant kept the same
in upper left pocket of this Tshirt. He further states that the
conversation was overheard and seen by this witness as well
as Sri N.K. Gupta.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he
did not remember whether he has seen the pending bill
during verification or before verification. Further, in para
53, he admits that he was not a witness to the incident .
18. 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.
(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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
14
2026:JHHC:32727
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
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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
15
2026:JHHC:32727
(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.”
19. 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.
20. 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
: (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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
16
2026:JHHC:32727
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.”
21. 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
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.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
17
2026:JHHC:32727
(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.
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.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
18
2026:JHHC:32727
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.”
22. In the instant case, the evidence of witnesses as discussed
above especially the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4
reveals that the bills of the complainant were pending for
payment before the appellant and the same was pending
becuase the appellant had demanded illegal gratification from
the complainant as alleged but the true story which comes out
from the perusal of the testimony of the above witnesses that
the bills were pending due to being old one and non-
compliance of required documents to be attached with the
bills. It further appears that as per the complaint, the C.B.I.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
19
2026:JHHC:32727
officers acted upon it and laid a pre-trap plan to catch the
appellant red-handed and accordingly prost-trap proceedings
were completed and appellant was arrested but the main
motive of pre-trap demonstration lacked in post-trap
proceeding i.e. “demand of any illegal gratification by the
appellant”. From the evidence of witnesses as discussed
above, it goes to reveal that shadow witnesses who were
deputed to overhear and see the post-trap proceedings
between the appellant and the complainant lacks in stating
the fact as to whether the G.C. Notes were given to the
appellant on the demand of the appellant or not rather the
shadow witnesses stated that they have seen the complainant
giving the G.C. Notes but whether any demand especially for
clearing the bills of the complainant was made or not is not
clear from the version of the shadow witness. Moreover, the
story of the prosecution has already been falsified by the
version of the complainant that after reaching at the place of
occurrence, the complainant rang the bell of the door of the
appellant, upon this, the appellant opened the gate and told
to sit in a steel chair, both of them exchanged wishes to each
other and the complainant told the appellant that
complainant is in trouble and in urgent need of money and
requested the appellant to pass the bills. Upon this, the
appellant replied that he has already told the complainant
that he would first forward first set of bills. Thereafter, the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
20
2026:JHHC:32727
complainant said that anyhow please pass the bills and the
complainant brought out the G.C. Notes and kept the same in
to the pocket of the appellant and gave signal and the above
version of the complainant goes to show that there was no
demand on the part of the appellant and the complainant
himself put the money in his pocket and on signal, the raiding
party reached and arrested the appellant.
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 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 23 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 (ii) of the Act. Para 22 and 23 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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
21
2026:JHHC:32727
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.
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)”
24. Therefore, there is complete absence of any demand of bribe
made by the accused and its acceptance as alleged by the
complainant.
25. 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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
22
2026:JHHC:32727
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.
26. 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
judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant
is hereby set aside and he is acquitted from the charges
leveled against him.
27. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the
liabilities of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged.
28. In result, this appeal is allowed.
29. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
30. 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 / NAFR
Uploaded On: 06/11/2026
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 680 of 2005
23