ANIL KUMAR GUPTA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND TH.C.B.I.
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
------
Anil Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Baijnath Prasad Gupta, R/o
Dwarikapuri, Chuna Bhatha Road, Chutia, P.S.-Chutia, Dist.-
Ranchi. … .... …. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I.
.... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Adv.
For the Resp.-C.B.I. : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Spl.P.P.
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 08.09.2026 Pronounced on 06/11/2026
1. Heard the arguments of learned Sr. counsel for the appellant-Sri
B.M. Tripathi and learned counsel Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati
appearing on behalf of 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)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.C. Case No. 6A of
2000 (R) passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi vide its
th
Judgment and order dated 11 May, 2006 whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been directed to undergo R.I. for
three years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under
Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and further sentenced
to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 7 of
the P.C. Act with a fine of Rs. 6000/-, with default stipulation.
Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run
concurrently.
2026:JHHC:32720
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the
complainant Rozamat Ansari (P.W.-5) was posted as Post
Master in Jaher Bargari Branch of Sub Post Office Since
31.2.1979. The present appellant Anil Kumar Gupta was sub-
divisional Inspector of Post used to visit time to time for
inspection of the post office. It is alleged by the complainant
that the appellant had demanded Rs. 1000/- from him on
27.05.2000 for giving favourable report in the ongoing
departmental enquiry being conducted by the appellant
against him in connection with an allegation of having
fraudulently withdrawn Rs. 4,000/- from the savings account
of one Marium Toppo. It is further stated that the appellant
had recorded the statement of complainant on 27.05.2000 in the
said inquiry and told him that in case he did not meet his
demand, he would be put in serious trouble like loss of job and
also told to come with the above amount to his residence on
31.05.2000. The complainant was not desiring to give bribe.
Hence, he lodged the complaint on 30.05.2000 at the office of
S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi who directed to Sri, P.K. Panigrahi
(Inspector, C.B.I., P.W.-8) for verification of the allegation who
submitted his report confirming the allegation leveled against
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
2
2026:JHHC:32720
the appellant to be true and recommended for registration of a
regular case on the same day.
4. Accordingly, S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi directed Sri Binay Kumar,
Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE Ranchi to register a case against
Sri Anil Kumar Gupta under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
5. After registration of the case being R.C. Case No. 6A/2000 (R)
dated 30.05.2000 at 5 PM by the CBI, a pre-trap proceeding was
started on 30.05.2000 under the leadership of Sri A Prasad, Dy.
S.P., C.B.I. Ranchi with other C.B.I. Officials. As per direction,
all the team members of CBI along with both independent
witnesses and complainant assembled in the office of Sri A
Prasad, Dy. S.P. at about 7 AM on 31.05.2000 and were
explained the process of laying trap and also explained the use
of phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with the
sodium carbonate solution in water which was followed by a
practical demonstration and Sri Rozamat Ansari produced 20
number of G.C. Notes of Rs. 50/- denomination amounting to
Rs. 1000/- and number and denominations of the G.C. Notes
were noted and properly treated with phenolphthalein powder
and asked the complainant to keep in his left side upper pocket
and instructed to given the said tainted G.C. notes to the
accused on being demanded as bribe otherwise not. The
complainant was instructed to negotiate the bribe matter in an
audible manner so that the shadow witness could hear the
same and give a signal so that team members could reach at
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
3
2026:JHHC:32720
the place of occurrence after receiving signal. Accordingly, a
memorandum of pre-trap proceeding was prepared. The team
proceeded for the place of occurrence and reached there to
apprehend the appellant red-handed. Thereafter, the
complainant along with independent witness Nandlal Prasad
(P.W.-3) entered inside the campus of accused Anil Kumar
Gupta at 8:30 AM and it is alleged that on demand, the
complainant handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 1000/- and
the same bribe amount of Rs. 1000/- is alleged to be recovered
from the possession of the present appellant. Memorandum of
post-trap proceeding was prepared, accordingly.
6. After conducting thorough investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed charge-sheet against the present appellant for the
offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The
appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the
appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether eight
witnesses:-
P.W.-1 Kamakhya Nand Tiwary
P.W.-2 Akhil Das
P.W.-3 Nand Lal Prasad
P.W.-4 Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal
P.W.-5 Rozamat Ansari
P.W.-6 Anil Kumar Srivastava
P.W.-7 Binay Kumar
P.W.-8 Prasan Kumar Panigrahi
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
4
2026:JHHC:32720
8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution
has adduced following documentary evidence:-
Ext.-1 Series Signature of the complainant and
the witnesses over pre-trap, post-trap memorandum,
all the four bottles and envelopes.
Ext.-2 Sanction Order
Ext.-3 Complaint Petition
Ext.-4 Report of C.F.S.L.
Ext.-5 Forwarding Letter
Ext.-6 Endorsement of Sri N. Jha over complaint
petition.
Ext.-7 Verification Report
Ext.-8 F.I.R.
Ext.-9 Pre-Trap Memorandum
Ext.-10 Search List
Ext.-11 Observation remarks dated 31.05.2000
Ext.-12 Memorandum Recovery and Seizure
9. The prosecution has also examined following material
exhibits:-
M. Ext.-1 Bottle Containing solution of
demonstration.
M. Ext.-II Envelope containing tainted piece of paper
M. Ext.-III Envelope Containing residual
phenolphthalein powder
M. Ext.-IV Bottle Containing left hand wash
M. Ext.-V Bottle Containing right hand wash
M. Ext.-VI Envelope containing G.C. Notes
M. Ext.-VII -VII/19 G.C. Notes
M. Ext.-VIII Bottle Containing Solution of T.Shirt
Wash
M. Ext.-IX Envelope Containing T-Shirt
M. Ext.-X T-Shirt of the accused
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
5
2026:JHHC:32720
10. On the other hand, the case of the defence is total denial from
occurrence. Further defence of accused is that he was
conducting an enquiry against the complainant for fraudulent
withdrawal of amount of Rs. 4000/- from the account of one
Mariyum Toppo and with a view to put pressure upon the
accused, this false case has been instituted against him and he
has falsely been implicated in this case. Further defence of the
accused is that he had already submitted the enquiry report on
30.05.2000 against the complainant, therefore, there was no
occasion to demand any illegal gratification for showing
favour to the complainant. It is also pleaded that nothing was
recovered from the conscious possession of the accused and his
hand was never washed in the solution of sodium carbonate as
claimed by the prosecution. However, no oral evidence has
been adduced on behalf of the defence, but defence has
adduced following documentary evidence:-
Ext.-A to Ext.-7 Enquiry Report Number E-J
Bargari/Brame dated 20.09.2000, inspection report
dated 16.07.1980, 07.01.1995, 22.03.199522.03.1997,
16.04.1998 and 02.02.1996
Ext.-B Letter No. B/2-10 AKG/CBI/2000-01
dated 28.07.2000
Ext-B/1 Letter No. F-Misc./J Bargari/SB/7/2003
dated 19.05.2004
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
6
2026:JHHC:32720
11. 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 that the
present appellant being the public servant was under the
charge of conducting enquiry for allegation of illegal
withdrawal from the account of Marium Toppo and was
bound to conduct a fair enquiry but with intention to show
favour to the complainant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.
1000/-. The prosecution witnesses have fully supported and
proved the factum of demand, acceptance and recovery of
illegal gratification at the hands of the accused and he was also
caught red-handed in the trap. The post-trap memorandum
also fortifies the charges leveled against the accused.
Accordingly, the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty
for the offence as stated above which has been assailed in this
appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellant: -
12. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
of the appellant, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has
pointed out following main grounds:-
Admittedly, the appellant was conducting the
departmental enquiry against the complainant just prior
to institution of this case. The allegation was very
serious in nature against the complainant that he has
fraudulently withdrawn of Rs. 4,000/- from the savings
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
7
2026:JHHC:32720
account of one Marium Toppo but it is stated by the
complainant that on 27.05.2000, he met with the
appellant in connection with departmental enquiry
against him and his statement was recorded. In the same
breath, he stated that there was demand of Rs. 1000/- by
the appellant to give a favourable report otherwise
consequence will be troublesome to him and also invited
him at his residence in the morning of 31.05.2000. It is
quite surprising that instead of immediately lodging the
case, the complainant waited for three days and in the
evening of 30.05.2000, filed a complaint before the S.P.,
C.B.I., Ranchi, although at that time enquiry report was
already submitted against him and he might have come
to know the result of enquiry by any source and
maliciously and having ill-will with the appellant
lodged this false case on an concocted story of demand
of bribe in order to teach a lesson to the appellant.
P.W.-1 Kamakhya Nand Tiwary, a postal employee has
categorically admitted in his evidence (para-5 & 7) that
the appellant had informed that the enquiry report with
regard to the complainant was complete and there has
been an entry in the dispatch register of the office dated
30.05.2000 and the enquiry report was also attached and
since it was inter-office letter, no dispatch number was
mentioned.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
8
2026:JHHC:32720
P.W.-2 Akhil Das, Personal Assistant of CMPDI office,
has been turned hosilte. P.W.-3 Nandlal Prasad, UDC in
CMPDI has admitted to be star witness of C.B.I. in many
trap cases including the present case.
The preliminary enquiry conducted by P.W.-8 on
30.05.2000 itself shows that he simply interrogated with
the complainant and concluded, no other independent
inquiry about the truthfulness of the allegation and
submitted his verification report confirming the
allegation. This witness did not bother to examine
Marium Toppo, whose money was fraudulently
withdrawn by the complainant himself.
The complaint was presented by P.W.-5 (Complainant)
at about 3:00 PM in the office of Sri N. Jha, S.P., C.B.I.
and within two hours of enquiry, report was submitted
and F.I.R. was lodged.
The story of trap is also strange. It is admitted by
complainant that the shadow witness were standing at a
distance of 50-60 feet from him. He alone went to the
residence of the appellant. This fact is also corroborated
by P.W.-2- Akhil Das. Therefore, there was no occasion
for the shadow witnesses to overhear the conversation
about transaction in between the complainant and the
appellant regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of
bribe money as alleged.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
9
2026:JHHC:32720
It is also admitted by the complainant that he has not
been found guilty of mis-appropriation of Rs. 4000/- in
case of Marium Toppo rather he was directed to deposit
the aforesaid amount and the recovery of aforesaid
money was ordered by the postal department and the
same was recovered from him. It is submitted that
recovery of amount illegally withdrawn also comes
under category of “punishment” under service rule of
Gram Dak Sewa Rule-9 (Ext.-A/1). In the year 1997 also,
the complainant was found guilty for mishandling of
money and the then Superintendent of Post Office had
recommended removal from service of the complainant
(Ext.A).
The prosecution has miserably failed to even disclose the
name of shadow witnesses and evidence of other
witnesses who were member of trap team also goes to
show that only Rozamat Ansari went inside the gate and
other witnesses were around 60 feet away from the gate.
The complainant rang the bell and some conversation
took place between the complainant and the accused but
none of the witnesses as per their location were able to
hear anything. It is also strange that at the time of taking
the bribe amount, some Hulla were raised but the
prosecution is mum as to who raised Hulla. The
complainant should not make any Hulla, if everything
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
10
2026:JHHC:32720
was going as per the plan, he has to only give signal as
demonstrated during pre-trap formalities. P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 have also made contradictory statement in this
regard. Admittedly the residence of appellant is situated
in the dense populated area having 300-400 houses in
near vicinity to each other but no neighbors were called
upon to witness the trap proceedings. The location of
trap is also misconceived by the prosecution witnesses.
Admittedly, the appellant was apprehended on
31.05.2000 and was granted bail by the Hon’ble High
Court on 14.07.2000. Therefore, there was no occasion for
the appellant to manipulate enquiry report and submit
the enquiry report prior to lodging of the case in the
office, in between 31.05.2000 to 14.07.2000.
Admittedly, 11 trap team members assembled at CBI
Office on 31.05.2000 at about 7 AM and finally trape was
conducted at 8:35 am at the residence of appellant. In
such span of 95 minutes, all the witnesses were
demonstrated about pre-trap formalities, memorandum
was prepared, G.C. Notes were dipped with
phenolphthalein power, sealed and given to the
complainant, with direction to give the same to the
accused only on demand of bribe and not otherwise,
thereafter, proceeded to location with the 11 members
read over and gone through the pre-trap memorandum
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
11
2026:JHHC:32720
and thereafter put their signature. Similarly, post-trap
formalities were conducted. All these proceedings were
done within above short span of time speaks foul play
and preparation of table work only. It is out and out a
false case, deliberately instituted by the complainant as a
grudge reckoning his vengeance due to submission of
enquiry report against the complainant on 30.05.2000.
The enquiry report (Ext.-A) dated 30.05.2000 was also
relied upon by the appellant while he was in custody
and moved his bail application before the C.B.I. Court on
07.06.2000 and also found mention in the bail rejection
order dated 09.06.2000 in Cr. Misc. Case No. 4965 of
2000(R) for grant of bail. The said enquiry report was
also filed as annexure-3. Therefore, the appellant was
granted bail. Above report is not disputed by the
prosecution. On the basis of which, the recovery was
made from the complainant of his illegally withdrawn
money.
From the conversation in between P.W.-5 and the
appellant, at the alleged time of trap itself, does not
constitute any demand of illegal gratification in
connection with ongoing departmental enquiry pending
against the complainant, which was concluded and
report was already submitted.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
12
2026:JHHC:32720
The learned trial Court has miserably failed to consider
the vital aspects of the case and the circumstances under
which the prosecution case was initiated against the
appellant and the background of the case which gave
rise to false implication of the appellant as well as
improbability proving the essential ingredients for
constituting the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read
with 13(2) of the P.C. Act. In view of the fact that no
favour was shown to the complainant in the department
proceeding going on against him and conducted by the
present appellant, therefore, there was no question to
demand and accept any illegal gratification using his
official position.
Submissions on behalf of the State-CBI
13. On the other hand, learned Sp.P.P. (C.B.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, scrutinize and
appreciated the evidence of witnesses, trap, proceedings and
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 gratification has been proved
by the prosecution even through holding trap, the
presumption under Section20 of the P.C. Act can be invoked to
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
13
2026:JHHC:32720
the effect that gratification was demanded and accepted as a
motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the
P.C.Act. The defence has simply relied upon enquiry report
submitted on 30.05.2000 itself but could not properly prove the
same and by submission of enquiry report itself, he cannot be
exonerated from his criminal liability if otherwise demand of
illegal gratification and its acceptance is proved by the
prosecution. The defence has miserably failed to rebut the
aforesaid presumption invoked against the appellant. During
trap proceeding, the demand, acceptance and recovery has
been proved which was in connection with departmental
proceeding against the complainant. 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 :
14. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned
judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of
respective parties.
15. 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?”
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
14
2026:JHHC:32720
16. Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it is pertinent
to take brief resume of the evidence available on record for
proper adjudication.
The star witness of this case is P.W.-5 Rozamat Ansari
( complainant). According to his evidence, he was posted at
Jaher Bargari Post Office as Branch Post Master and one
Marium Toppo had complained about fraudulent transaction
of Rs. 4000/- which led to departmental proceeding against
the complainant which was being conducted by the appellant
who asked for Rs. 1000/- for giving favouarable report and
asked the complainant to come with Rs. 1000/- at 7 AM on
31.05.2000. The complaint was filed on 30.05.2000 before S.P.,
C.B.I., Ranchi. After verification of allegations, F.I.R. was
instituted on 31.05.2000, pre-trap memorandum was planned
to apprehend the appellant red-handed and all the pre-trap
formalities were explained to the complainant. Thereafter, the
trap team proceeded for place of occurrence and reached
there about 8:30 AM. The complainant and Sri Nand Lal
Prasad (P.W.-3) entered into the residential premises of
appellant and rang the doorbell then the appellant asked the
complainant “kya Ansari ek hazar rupya laye ho”, he replied
“ haa”, the complainant brought out the money from upper
left side pocket of the shirt and gave to the appellant who
counted the same and kept in his upper left side pocket of T-
Shirt. Then, the complainant gave a signal, all the trap team
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
15
2026:JHHC:32720
members apprehended the appellant red-handed and all the
post-trap proceeding was completed including the wash of
hand which colour of solution turned pink and was sealed
and signed by the trap team members.
P.W.-3 Nand Lal Prasad has claimed to have gone with
the complainant inside the house of the appellant when post-
trap proceeding was going on to apprehend the appellant
red-handed. This witness in his cross-examination admits
that he was standing near the gate just in front of the
Verandah of the house of the accused and P.W.-2 Akhil Das
was standing behind him
P.W.-2 Akhil Das has admitted that he has not seen
the transaction of bribe amount and on this point, this
witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. He
has further stated that he was standing on the main road
during trap proceeding and on Halla, he had rushed in the
house of the accused.
P.W.-7 Binay Kumar
is the Investigating Officer of this
case and after receipt of verification report, Sri N. Jha, S.P.,
C.B.I. directed this witness to register a case and take up
investigation. This witness was also a member of trap team
constituted for apprehending the accused red-handed. This
witness has also admitted that complainant and P.W.-3 had
entered into the premises of accused and other members took
their suitable position. This witness has also supported the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
16
2026:JHHC:32720
fact that the appellant had rang the doorbell then the
appellant asked the complainant “kya Ansari ek hazar rupya
laye ho”, the complainant replied in affirmative “ haa”, the
complainant brought out the money from upper left side
pocket of the shirt and gave, the appellant counted the same
and kept in his upper left side pocket of T-Shirt. Then, the
complainant gave a signal, all the trap team members
apprehended the appellant red-handed and all the post-trap
proceeding was completed including the wash of hand which
colour of solution turned pink was sealed and signed by the
trap team members. A detail memorandum of recovery and
seizure was prepared and sent the material exhibit to
C.F.S.L., Kolkata and obtained expert opinion and after
completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet. This
witness has also admitted that he had recorded the
statement of Akhil Das (P.W.-2), who had stated before this
witness that appellant enquired from the complainant by
saying “Kya Ansari Ek Hazar Rupya Laye Ho”, then the
complainant replied in affirmative “Haa”.
It is surprising that P.W.-2 in his deposition has
admitted that he has not seen any transaction between the
appellant and complainant due to his position being
outside the premises but he has given his statement before
the I.O. that he has seen the conversation between them.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
17
2026:JHHC:32720
P.W.-8 Prasan Kumar Panigrahi who is the verifying
officer and member of the trap team and was directed by S.P.,
C.B.I., on 30.05.2000, to verify the genuineness of the
complaint lodged by the complainant. This witness states that
he had questioned the complainant and confirmed his
allegation but he had not enquired from the Marium Toppo
whose money was fraudulently withdrawn by the
complainant.
P.W.-6 Anil Kumar Srivastava
is the Asst. Director,
C.F.S.L. who had examined the solution of four bottles sealed
during pre-trpa and post trap and found phenolphthalein and
sodium carbonate in the solution.
P.W.-1 Kamakhya Nand Tiwary is the Sub Divisional
Inspector, Post Office. He has stated that in the year 2000, he
was complaint Inspector in the office of Senior
Superintendent. He has further stated that an enquiry for
withdrawal of Rs. 4,000/- from the S.B. Account of Mariyam
Toppo was pending. The enquiry was entrusted to accused
Anil Kumar Gupta and after his trap that enquiry was
entrusted to Sri Sita Ram, Assistant Superintendent, Sri Bimal
Kishore, Sub. Div. Superintendent and to me by Senior
Superintendent. He has stated during his cross examination
that Anil Kumar Gupta had not submitted his enquiry report
before trap. He has further stated that it was mentioned in
dispatch register that his enquiry report is ready .
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
18
2026:JHHC:32720
17. 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
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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
19
2026:JHHC:32720
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
(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.”
18. 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.
K. Shanthamma
19. The relevant paragraph number 11 of
(Supra) is reproduced as hereunder:-
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
20
2026:JHHC:32720
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
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.”
20. 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.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
21
2026:JHHC:32720
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.
(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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
22
2026:JHHC:32720
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.
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.”
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
23
2026:JHHC:32720
21. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
does not disclose as to whether any talk of demand was made
or not. It is also not clear from the evidence of two shadow
witnesses who were especially sent for overhearing the
conversation between the complainant and the appellant as
the P.W.-2 has stated in his evidence that he had not seen any
transaction between the appellant and the complainant
whereas P.W.-3 states that he was standing just behind the
gate in front of Verahnda but not the room where the
conversation and transaction alleged to have taken place
between the appellant and the complainant. There also
appear several contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 where it has come on record that somewhere P.W.-3
Nand Lal Prasad admits that Akhil Das was standing just
behind him whereas Akhil Das (P.W.-2) himself admits that
he was standing at the main road. Another glaring aspect is
that whole pre-trap and post-trap proceedings have been
executed in a haste completing all the pre-trap formalities and
post-trap proceedings within a very short span of time which
also casts a doubt whether the post-trap plan was executed in
a manner as was planned in the pre-trap demonstration. It is
also apparent from the perusal of the report of departmental
proceedings (Ext.-A) that on the date of institution of
complaint, the report of departmental proceeding was ready
and was submitted in the office of Sr. Superintendent of Post
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
24
2026:JHHC:32720
Office, Ranchi and its entry was made in the
dispatch/correspondence register. It is also surprising that if
the appellant has actually demanded any illegal gratification
and told the complainant to reach at his residence on
31.05.2000 then, why the report of the departmental
proceeding of the complainant was ready for dispatch on
30.05.2000 itself. Further, it is crystal clear from the evidence
of complainant as well as purported shadow witness (P.W.-3)
Nand Lal Prasad that both have consistently stated that the
accused wishing the complainant at his door straightway
asked “whether you have brought Rs. 1000/-“that is also
corroborated by the P.W.-3. The above version of both the
witnesses does not indicate that there was any demand of
bribe at the hands of the appellant or he ever accepted any
money as a bribe. Therefore, demand of bribe by the
appellant from the complainant appears to be absolutely
unreliable and unworthy of credit. I also find substance in the
point of argument raised on behalf of the appellant that
complainant approached the appellant on 27.05.2000 and if as
alleged, any illegal gratification for showing favour was made
by the appellant, as to why the complainant waited for three
days instead of immediately lodging the complaint regarding
the illegal gratification and in the evening of 30.05.2000, the
complainant filed a complaint before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi
although at that time enquiry report was already submitted
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
25
2026:JHHC:32720
against him. It might be a situation that the complainant
might have come to know the result of enquiry by any source
and maliciously and having ill-will with the appellant lodged
this false case on a concocted story of demand of bribe in
order to teach a lesson to the appellant. Most of the
prosecution witnesses are the members of the pre-trap
memorandum who had to execute the same in the post-trap
proceedings and all have just managed to complete the table
work of post-trap proceeding lacking in substance of demand,
acceptance and recovery.
22. 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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
26
2026:JHHC:32720
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.
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)”
23. Therefore, there is complete absence of any demand of bribe
made by the accused, its acceptance and recovery as alleged
by the complainant. The mere insistence upon recovery of
G.C. Notes and post-trap formalities would be of no avail to
prosecution. Therefore, no presumption under Section 20 of
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 684 of 2006
27
2026:JHHC:32720
the Act, can be raised against the appellant. The complainant
himself had an evil motive to implicate the appellant.
24. In the above factual background, the ingredients of either of
the offences under Section 7 & 13 (1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are 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.
25. In the light of foregoing discussions and reasons, I find
substance in the 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.
26. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the
liabilities of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged.
27. In result, this appeal is allowed.
28. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
29. 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. 684 of 2006
28