DILIP KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH VIGILANCE A C B RANCHI
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32732
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1398 of 2018
------
Dilip Kumar, aged about 39 years, S/o Late Siyaram Thakur, R/o-
Vill.-Sai Colony, Upper Chutia, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, Dist.-Ranchi
… .... …. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance (A.C.B.) Ranchi
.... .... .... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1402 of 2018
------
Binod Kumar Jha, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Mahendra
Narayan Jha, Resident of Flat No.-401, Sri Sai Tower, New Area,
Morabadi, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi
… .... …. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance (A.C.B.) Ranchi
.... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate
[in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1398 of 2018]
Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Omiya Anusha, Adv.
Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate
Mrs. Kshama Kumari, Advocate
[in Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 1402 of 2018]
For the Resp.-A.C.B. : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 18.09.2026 Pronounced on 06/11 /2026
1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of A.C.B.
2. The instant criminal appeals have been preferred by the above
named appellants challenging their judgment of conviction
dated 04.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 06.09.2018 in
Vigilance (Spl.) Case No. 17 of 2013 passed by the learned Special
Judge, ACB, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the appellant-
2026:JHHC:32732
Binod Kumar Jha has been convicted for the offence under Setion
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
directed to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for
the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act, with default stipulation,
while acquitted for the offence under Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d)
of the P.C. Act. Further appellant-Dilip Kumar has been
convicted for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two
years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, with default stipulation, and
acquitted for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act.
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that the
complainant Sudhir Kumar Thakur (P.W.-2) retired from the
post of Circle Officer, canal Revenue Anchal, Lohardagga on
31.03.2013. It is alleged that some of the post retire benefits
were paid to him by the concerned department but some of
them like provisional gratuity amount for Rs. 7,89,103/- was
issued from the office of the accused No.1 Binod Kumar Jha
but payment was pending. It is alleged that for payment of
aforesaid amount, Binod Kumar Jha who was a Deputy
Collector Revenue Division, Ranchi, demanded Rs. 20,000/- as
bribe from the complainant through his cashier Dilip Kumar.
As the complainant was not willing to give bribe, he lodged
written complaint before S.P., Vigilance Bureau (Ext-5) who
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
2
2026:JHHC:32732
forwarded the complaint for verification to Inspector, Jitnedra
Kumar who submitted his verification report, finding
allegation to be true (Ext-14). Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged.
The charge of investigation was entrusted to Inspector, Sri
Anjani Kumar. A trap team was constituted by the I.O. (Ext.-
15) which was duly signed by all the members of the trap and
also approved by the S.P. Vigilance (Ext.15 series). Pre trap
formalities were conducted. G.C. Note Memorandum was also
prepared, the reaction of phenolphthalein powder with
sodium carbonate was also demonstrated and a pre-trap
memorandum was prepared. On 09.05.2013, at about 17.00
hours, the trapping team trapped accused Dilip Kumar at
Stadium Road, near Shalimar Market and recovered the
tainted notes of Rs. 20,000/- from his right hand in presence of
two independent witnesses Munna Ansari and Varun Vishal
Gaurav and found that it was the same notes upon which
phenolphthalein power was percolated and mentioned in the
G. C. Note Memorandum. Thereafter, the hands of Dilip
Kumar was dipped into the solution of sodium carbonate and
phenolphthalein power which, the colour of the solution
turned pink thus, it was concluded that accused has accepted
bribe money. Accordingly, the search and seizure list was
prepared (Exhibit-17). Accused was arrested in presence of
special Magistrate and was remanded to jail.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
3
2026:JHHC:32732
4. In the course of investigation, Investigating Officer seized the
documents relating to pending work of the complainant from
the possession of the accused, which was issued vide Memo
No.- 69 dated 02.03.2013 (Exhibit-6) along with other payment
Orders which are not the subject matter of dispute although
produced and marked as Ext.-7. The Investigating Officer also
sanctioned for prosecuting the accused from concerned
department (Ext-19) dated 27.06.2013 and from the State of
Jharkhand dated 31.08.2013 against accused No. 1 (Ext.-20).
Thereafter submitted charge sheet No. 37/2013 dated
04.07.2013 and charge sheet No. 3/14 dated 12.02.2014 against
the accused persons. Material exhibits were sent for chemical
examination to S.F.S.L. But during whole trial, the report of
State Forensic Science Laboratory of the chemical solution has
not been obtained.
5. After taking cognizance of offence, the accused persons
appeared and contested the case, denying the charges leveled
against them and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the
appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether ten (10)
witnesses:-
P.W.-1 Varun Vishal Gaurav
P.W.-2 Sudhir Kumar Thakur
P.W.-3 Anil Oroan
P.W.-4 Jitendra Kumar
P.W.-5 Raj Narayan Singh
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
4
2026:JHHC:32732
P.W.-6 Vinay Kumar
P.W.-7 Rakesh Ranjan
P.W.-7/A Dabasis Mohapatra
P.W.-8 Anjani Kumar Singh
P.W.-9 Shivendra Lal Manik
7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution
has adduced following documentary evidence:-
Ext.-1 to 1/5 Series of Endorsement and Signature
of the complaint and the witnesses over G.C. Notes
Memorandum.
Ext.-2 to 2/2 Series of Signature of Witnesses over
list of property
Ext.-3 to 3/2 Series of Signature of witnesses over
memo of arrest
Ext.-4 to 4/19 Signature of P.W.-1 Varun Vishal
Gaurav on G.C. Notes
Ext.-5 Complaint Petition
Ext.-5/1 Endorsement with signature of Raj
Kumar Lakra on complaint
Ext.-6 to 8 Series of Letter dated 02.04.2013
Ext.-9 Seizure cum search list
Ext.-9/1 to 9/4 Signatures of witnesses on seizure,
production cum search list.
Ext.-10 to 12 Series of Memo dated 02.04.2013 of
Material Exhibit-IV
Ext.-12/1 Copy of Bill of Rs. 7,89,103/-
attached in Material Ext.-IV
Ext.-13 Xerox Copy of Memo No.
2352/Ranchi dated 09.09.2008
Ext.-14 Verification Report
Ext.-14/1 to 14/2 Endorsement with signature of
witnesses on verification report
Ext.-15 List of Trap Team Members
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
5
2026:JHHC:32732
Ext. 15/1 Approval with signature of Rajeet
Kumar Prasad on list of trap team members
Ext.-15/2 to 15/4 Signature of witnesses on list of Trap
Team Mmebers
Ext.-16 G.C. Notes Memorandum
Ext.-17 Search List of Property
Ext.-18 Memo of Arrest
Ext.-19 & 20 Sanction Order of accused Dilip
Kumar and signature of Amitabh Kumar Gupta on
Sanction Order of accused Binod Kumar Jha
Ext.-21 Application to Principal Secretary,
Water Resources Dept.
Ext.-22 Request Letter for prosecution
sanction order of accused
Ext.-23 Receiving receipt of S.F.S.L. Ranchi
dated 05.06.2013
8. The prosecution has also examined following material
exhibits:-
M. Ext.-I to I/19 Twenty Indian Currency Notes of
Rs. 1000x20, total amount of Rs. 20,000/-
M. Ext.-II Allotment Register
M. Ext.-III Bill Book
M. Ext.-IV Pension Register
9. On the other hand, the case of the defence is complete denial
from occurrence and false implication. It is pleaded that no
demand as alleged for facilitating the payment of retiral dues
of the complainant was ever made either by accused No. 1 or 2
and recovery of tainted G.C. Notes from the possession of
Accused No. 2 is also denied rather he was arrested without
any formalities conducted by trap team. It is also pleaded that
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
6
2026:JHHC:32732
entire retiral dues of the complainant was paid but due to dues
of his loan amount, there was some delay and complainant
himself was not cooperating in this regard rather lodged false
case. The accused persons are absolutely innocent. The defence
has also examined following two witnesses:-
D.W.-1 Binod Kumar Jha
D.W.-2 Dilip Kumar
10. Apart from above oral testimony, following documentary
evidence has also been adduced by the defence:-
Ext.-A Allotment Register 2013-14
Ext.-B Bill Book, year 2011-14
Ext.-C Pension Register Rajaswa
Parmandal Dhurwa
Ext.-D and D/1 Xerox Copy of Pension Rule (2
sheets)
Ext.-E Whole Page No. 48 of Pension
Register
Ext.-E/1 Back page of Page No. 56 of Bill
Book
Ext.-F Whole writing in red colour on page
No. 5 of Pension Register
Ext. –F/1 Signature of Rakesh Ranjan on Page
No. 5 of Ext. C
Ext.-G Endorsement with signature of
accused Vinod Kumar Jha with Seal on page No. 5 of
Ext.-C
Ext.-H Letter No. 26 dated 05.02.2018 of Dy.
Collector cum public information officer, Rajaswa
Parmandal, Ranchi
11. The learned trial Court after scrutinizing the oral as well as
documentary evidence along with material exhibits relied
upon by the prosecution came to the definite conclusion that
the prosecution has been able to prove the charge leveled
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
7
2026:JHHC:32732
against the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as
stated above.
Submissions on behalf of appellants: -
12. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence,
learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued
that Dilip Kumar was not a dealing clerk with regard to the
matter of retiral dues of the complainant and no work was
pending before him connected with the complainant.
Admittedly, he has raised no demand of bribe/illegal
gratification to show any favour to the complainant in the
matter of releasing the gratuity amount as alleged.
Admittedly, there is no allegation of raising any demand of
illegal gratification against this appellant rather in general
terms it is stated that through this appellant Dilip Kumar,
demand of Rs. 20,000/- was raised on behalf of the appellant-
Binod Kumar Jha which has never been proved by the
prosecution neither tainted money has been recovered from
the possession of this appellant nor demanded and accepted
the bribe money from the complainant which are core
ingredients to be proved by the prosecution for conviction
under P.C. Act. P.W.-3 Anil Oraon, lower clerk of the
Revenue Dept. has categorically admitted in his evidence that
on 15.04.2013, the gratuity bill was produced before the Binod
Kumar Jha who endorse to calculate the dues amount and put
up before P.W.-7 Rakesh Ranjan dealing clerk of the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
8
2026:JHHC:32732
department regarding pension and gratuity etc. The
complainant P.W.-2 has also admitted in his evidence that all
other bills has been cleared by the co-accused who also made
query about any recoverable amount from the complainant in
presence of complainant himself. It is also admitted by the
complainant P.W.-2 that a notice was issued against him by
this appellant Dilip Kumar for recovery of dues amount. The
complainant also admits in his evidence (Para-73) that the
present appellant has no concern regarding retiral dues of the
complainant and denied the suggestion that he has implicated
this appellant in false case due to disclosure of due amount
against complainant. The alleged shadow witnesses have also
not been able to prove the hearing of conversation regarding
demand of bribe and its acceptance by the appellant Dilip
Kumar. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to
fasten the liability for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.
Act. It has also been submitted that no F.S.L. report has been
brought on record to establish the post-trap proceedings with
regard to chemical reaction nor any independent witnesses
were examined by the prosecution which was a mandatory
procedural requirement to ensure fairness and impartiality of
the trap proceedings. It has also been submitted that Binod
Kumar Jha has admittedly not received the bribe money and
there is no direct or any circumstantial evidence establishing
that appellant has even physically handled the bribe money.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
9
2026:JHHC:32732
Therefore, the learned trial Court has not taken the oral as
well as documentary evidence led by the appellants in right
perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion of guilt of the
appellants which is liable to be set aside and this appeal may
be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of the State-CBI
13. On the other hand, learned Sp.P.P. controverting the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of the appellants 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, trap proceedings and
material exhibits and arrived at right conclusion that the
prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the
accused persons 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 Section 20 of the P.C. Act can be
invoked to 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 miserably failed to rebut the
aforesaid presumption invoked against the appellants. During
trap proceeding, the demand, acceptance and recovery has
been proved which was in connection with releasing the
gratuity amount. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
10
2026:JHHC:32732
appellant and no merits in these appeals which are 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 these appeals is “as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
of the appellants suffers from any error of law, which requires
any interference in these appeals?”
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 PW-2 Sudhir Kumar
Thakur. According to his evidence, he had retired from
service on 31.03.2013 got some retiral benefits but dues
amount of post retirement benefit was to be paid to him
under the signature of Binod Kumar Jha (appellant) but the
same was withheld and for clearing its payment, A-1 Binod
Kumar Jha demanded Rs. 20,000/- as bribe. Then, he made
complaint before the Vigilance Bureau. He has further
deposed that on 07.05.2013 Sri Jitendra Prasad, Police
Inspector of vigilance Bureau accompanied him for
verification of the complaint and by standing near the gate, he
heard the conversation whereas A-1 Binod Kumar Jha
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
11
2026:JHHC:32732
demanded gratification money and the report was submitted
in affirmative and on 09.05.2013 at about 12:30 P.M, he
appeared with gratification money before the Vigilance
Bureau where chemical reaction demonstration with sodium
carbonate and phenolphthalein powder was made with a
plain paper in his presence, he supplied the tainted money
upon which the phenolphthalein powder was percolated,
G.C. Note Memorandum prepared and it was handed over to
him for giving it to the accused on the demand as gratification
money otherwise not. He along with the trapping team went
to the place of occurrence in the office of A-2 Dilip Kumar and
met with him who directed to wait. Thus the complainant
came back in his car and after sometime, Dilip Kumar came
out in the car of complainant and demanded Rs. 20,000/-.
Thereafter, the vehicle proceeded towards Shalimar Market
and on the direction of Dilip Kumar, the vehicle was stopped
and when he demanded Rs. 20,000/-, the complainant gave
the tainted money to Dilip Kumar and the complainant gave
signal and the accused Dilip Kumar was arrested. Two
independent persons Varun Vishal Gaurav P.W. 1 and
Munna Ansari were called from the gathering and in their
presence, search was made and the tainted money of Rs.
20,000/- was recovered from his right hand which was seized
and matched as mentioned in the G.C. Note Memorandum
and on dipping his hands in the chemical solution of sodium
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
12
2026:JHHC:32732
carbonate, the colour of liquid turned Pink confirming
recovery of tainted money from his possession and thereafter
the accused was arrested. This witness also states that he has
not given any application to Binod Kumar Jha but gave to his
dealing work.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that
there was a car loan and the the interest of car loan was due
upon him when the bill was prepared. Further, in Para No.
74, he has expressed his unawareness about Letter No. 114
dated 30.05.2013 sent by Binod Kumar Jha regarding some
dues to be deducted that some dues is standing against him
and the complainant had also no knowledge about his actual
total retiral benefits which was to be paid to him. He has
denied in Para No. 120 that on 15.04.2013, he had gone to
office of accused Binod Kumar Jha along with Rakesh Ranjan
and Dilip Kumar where the accused Binod Kumar Jha had
signed all the papers of the complainant.
PW-1 Varun Vishal Gaurav , Independent witness who
has deposed that he saw a car stopped at stadium road and
two Sumo Jeep also arrived there and some scuffle took place
there. When he went there, he came to know that a person has
taken bribe and has been arrested. He has supported the fact
that he and Munna Ansari became the independent witness
and in his presence, on search, Rs. 20,000/- tainted money
was recovered from the possession of Dilip Kumar. He made
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
13
2026:JHHC:32732
signature on it and all post-trap formalities were completed.
He has admitted that he has not seen that Dilip Kumar
acceptted any illegal gratification from the complainant.
PW-4 Jitendra Kumar is the person who had verified
the complaint and has stated that on direction, he went to
verify the matter in the office of accused Binod Kumar Jha
with the complainant where the accused demanded
gratification money of Rs. 20,000/- and stated to give the
same to the accused Dilip Kumar. Then, he went to the office
of Dilip Kumar where he also demanded the money
Thereafter, the case was lodged. But in para 27 of his
deposition, he has stated that he had no proof of having
visited Nepal House on that day, at that time, and further in
Para 28, he deposed that he had gone to the gate of the office
of accused Binod Kumar Jha on that day in course of
verification but he had not gone inside his office. Thus, it is
clear that he has not verified the complaint of complainant
in right way.
PW-3 Anil Oraon is the formal witness, who has
submitted some relevant files of the office relating to the work
of complainant and has identified some signatures of the
officer concerned which is not denied by the defence.
PW-5 Raj Narayan Singh is a police Inspector, ACB,
Ranchi, one of the members of the trapping team who has
deposed that he did not hear any conversation between the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
14
2026:JHHC:32732
accused and the complainant regarding demand of bribe. He
neither heard the accused demanding a bribe, nor he saw the
complainant offering the bribe, nor did he see the accused
accepting the bribe.
PW-6 Vinay Kumar is the formal witness who has
identified Exhibit-19, the sanction for prosecution which is
granted against accused Dilip Kumar.
PW-7 Rakesh Ranjan is also a formal witness who was
the dealing clerk of the work of complainant. He has proved
that Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, Dy.S.P, Vigilance Bureau,
Ranchi has seized some pension papers from the file of the
complainant and obtained his signature in support of it to
which, he has identified as Exhibit-9. He has further deposed
in his cross-examination that वादी के उपर मोटर कार का अि Ť म
बकाया था और प į रवहन भता और मकान िकराया से संबंिधत िवभागीय
वादी के उपर बकाया था , वादी के िव ŜȠ िवभागीय बकाया होने के कारण
उपादान (gratuity) िबल रोक िदया गया था. In para 7 and 8, he has
further deposed that त ǽ ालीन नाजीर िदिलप कुमार का वादी के प Ő शन
भुगतान एवं Gratuity के भुगतान से कोई लेना देना नहीं था। िदिलप कुमार
वादी सुिधर कुमार ठाकुर के िकसी भी काय Ŋ से संबंिधत फाइल का संचालन
नहीं िकये और ना ही उसका Ů भारी थे।
वादी के उपरोक्त िबल का भुगतान इस िलए रोक िदया गया Ɛ ोंिक
उनके Ȫ ारा िवभागीय बकाया राशी का भुगतान नहीं िकया गया था। वादी
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
15
2026:JHHC:32732
काफी Ů यास कर रहा था िक उन पर िवभागीय बकाया राशी को िबना
बसूल िकये उनके सभी िबल का भुगतान िमल जाये।
PW-7A Debasis Mohapatra who has identified
Exhibit-20 to be issued by the Law Department through the
office of the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand
which is sanction for prosecution against the accused Binod
Kumar Jha.
PW-8 Anjani Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer,
who has supported the case of the prosecution. He further
deposed that he recorded statement of the complainant on
09.05.2013 at 13:45 hours and stated that Dilip Kumar was
arrested from Maruti Car No. JH01V 9307. He has further
supported the fact of constitution of trapping team,
introduction of the complainant with all the members of the
trapping team, chemical reaction demonstration, their visit to
the place of occurrence and recovery of tainted money from
the possession of A-2 Dilip Kumar and his arrest. He has also
supported seizure of the documents relating to the work of
complainant. He has also proved some bill books of the office
of the accused as material Exhibit-II, III and IV, which is
admitted to be genuine documents and pending before the
office of A-1 Binod Kumar Jha and has also supported the fact
that requisition was made for grant of sanction for
prosecution of accused persons before the competent
authority. He has also identified Exhibit-23, which is the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
16
2026:JHHC:32732
acknowledgement receipt of SFSL in support of receiving
marked 'A, B, C & D' in the SFSL office but its report has not
been made available during trial. Further he deposed that
म œ ने अिभयु ƅ ों को वादी से घुस माँगते ना ही सुना था और ना ही घुस लेते या
देते देखा था Ɛ ोंिक घुस लेने देने की Ů ि Ţ या गाड़ी के अंदर Š आ था .
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that no file
was recovered from the possession of Dilip Kumar nor any
work was pending before him of the complainant.
PW-9 Shivendra Lal Manik, was the Special Magistrate
at the time of trap and recovery of tainted notes. He has
admitted that म Ő सूचक और अिभयु ƅ ों के बीच कोई बातचीत होते ना तो
सुना š ँ ना ही देखा š ँ म œ ने अिभयु ƅ ों को वादी से घुस माँगते नहीं सुना š ँ
िदलीप कुमार को घुस देते नहीं देखा था Ɛ ोंिक घुस का लेन द Ő न वादी के
मा Ŝ ित गाड़ी के अंदर Š आ .
DW-1 Binod Kumar Jha has stated that when three
bills were produced before him, he signed on two bills but
before signing of 3rd bill, he asked from Rakesh Ranjan that
whether any recoverable amount is due against him or not, he
told that car loan interest is due to recover from him and
therefore, he did not sign on it and this fact has been
supported by PW-7 Rakesh Rajan. He has denied demanding
any gratification money by himself or giving direction to
Dilip Kumar to accept it for him.
D.W.-2 Dilip Kumar has deposed that neither he was
posted in the alleged office nor any file was pending before
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
17
2026:JHHC:32732
him and therefore, he has not demanded any gratification
money, but has wrongly been arrested.
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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
18
2026:JHHC:32732
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
(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.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
19
2026:JHHC:32732
19. 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
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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
20
2026:JHHC:32732
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.
(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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
21
2026:JHHC:32732
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.
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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
22
2026:JHHC:32732
a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in
nature.”
21. In the instant case, from the evidence of witnesses as
discussed above, it is clear that as per the complainant, the
appellant-Binod Kumar Jha asked for illegal gratification for
releasing the retiral dues but going through the oral as well as
documentary evidence, it is apparent that the rest of the
retiral dues of the complainant was stopped due to dues of
the complainant against the car loan and the complainant had
himself wrote a letter in this regard to release the retiral
benefit after deducting the same. It also appears that when
the transaction as alleged by the complainant were exchanged
between Dilip Kumar and Complainant, no one present in the
Car to witness the same. It is claimed that there were two
independent witnesses who witnessed the post-trap
proceeding but the Independent witness P.W.-1 Mr. Varun
Vishal Gaurav has himself admitted that he has not seen any
demand and acceptance by the Dilip Kumar but he was called
from the gatherings by the other raiding members to witness
the seizure from the Dilip Kumar when each of the raiding
team members approached at the place of occurrence on
getting signal and the most glaring aspect is that no F.S.L.
report has been brought on record to establish the post-trap
proceedings with regard to chemical reaction which was a
mandatory procedural requirement to ensure fairness of the
post-trap proceedings. It has also come on record that Binod
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
23
2026:JHHC:32732
Kumar Jha has admittedly not received the bribe money not
there is any direct or circumstantial evidence establishing that
appellant has ever physically handled the bribe money or
asked for the same.
22. From the aforesaid discussion and reason, it is crystal clear
that there was no shadow witness to overhear and see the
demand and acceptance by the Dilip Kumar except
complainant who has himself admitted that he has not given
any application to Binod Kumar Jha for releasing dues of the
retiral benefits nor any S.F.S.L. report has been brought on
record to establish that the tainted money which was
recovered and turned pink when the same was dipped in the
sodium carbonate solution was actually recovered from
accused Dilip Kumar.
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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
24
2026:JHHC:32732
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.
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)”
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
25
2026:JHHC:32732
24. 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.
25. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I find substance
in the above points of argument raised on behalf of the
appellants and merits in these appeals. Accordingly,
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of
the appellants is hereby set aside and they are acquitted from
the charges leveled against them.
26. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from
the liabilities of bail bonds. Sureties are also discharged.
27. In result, these appeals are allowed.
28. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
29. Let a copy of this judgment be sent 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. 1398 & 1402 of 2018
26