PRADEEP KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CBI
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
------
Pradeep Kumar, Son of Shiv Prasad Sahu, R/o-Pradeep Kunj, near
Auto Stand, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.-Harmu, P.S.-Argora,
Dist.-Ranchi … .... …. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I.
.... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate
For the Resp.-C.B.I. : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Adv.
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 14.08.2026 Pronounced on 06/11/2026
1. Heard the arguments of learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel 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(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.C. Case No. 09A of
2007 (R) passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi vide its
th
Judgment and order dated 10 July, 2014 whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been directed to undergo R.I. for
three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under
Section 7 of P.C. Act; further directed to undergo R.I. for four
years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section
13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, with default stipulation.
2026:JHHC:32730
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Jitendra
Kumar Singh (P.W.8) proprietor of M/s Maa Geevachh
Enterprises lodged a complaint on 19.06.2007 against the
present appellant stating inter alia that the appellant Pradeep
Kumar, section Officer, SAIL, Ranchi was looking after
Accounts work of SAIL Employees' Consumers' Co-operative
Society Ltd. Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as SECCSL) has
demanded illegal gratification/ bribe of Rs. 8,000/- in lieu of
making payment of the bills of the complainant to the tune of
Rs.80,000/- approximately in favour of the firm of the
complainant against supplies of various consumable items to
the said co-operative society. It is alleged that the accused was
competent to process the bills of the said firm and to get issued
the cheques against the pending bills of the said firm. It is
further alleged that the accused had already got the cheques
prepared in connection with discharge of bills of the complaint
much before 19.06.2007 and kept in his custody and was not
delivering the same to the complainant and was asking for
illegal gratification for delivery of the same. It is further
alleged that on repeated request and negotiation by the
complainant on 19.06.2007 with the accused, the accused
became ready to accept Rs. 6000/- as advance and remaining
Rs. 2000/- after payment of the bills.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
2
2026:JHHC:32730
4. As the complainant was not intended to pay bribe , hence, he
lodged a written complaint before S.P./CBI/ACB/Ranchi on
19.06.2007 requesting therein to take necessary legal action in
the matter.
5. The complaint got verified through Sanjay Kumar Sinha
(P.W.6), Inspector of CBI, Ranchi who thoroughly interrogated
with the complainant and found the allegations leveled against
the accused to be prima facie true and submitted his report.
Accordingly, F.I.R. was registered and the charge of
investigation was given to K.K.Singh (P.W.9), Inspector CBI,
Ranchi.
6. A trap was laid to apprehend the accused red handed while
demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 6000/-
from the complainant. A team was constituted and all the
members of trap team assembled in the office of K.K. Singh,
Inspector on 19.06.2007 at about 7:30 PM. All the members
were introduced about the purpose of assembly and pre-trap
demonstration was conducted with assignment of role to each
of the members. G.C. notes of Rs. 1000/- in denomination to
number of the notes were noted and it was smeared with
phenolphthalein powder, the reaction of phenolphthalein
powder with sodium carbonate was also explained. The
complainant was instructed to give the tainted G.C. Notes to
the accused on being demanded by him as bribe otherwise not.
The complainant was further instructed that after reaching the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
3
2026:JHHC:32730
co-operative society at SAIL, Ranchi, he would negotiate the
bribe matter with the accused in an audible manner so that the
conversation be over heard by the witnesses and other trap
party members present in the vicinity. The complainant was
also asked to give a signal by right hand fingers after
acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. The independent
witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) was asked to accompany the
complainant to listen the conversation between the both and
also to observe the acceptance of tainted bribe amount
Rs.6000/- of by the accused and other independent witness
Om Prakash Sharma was also instructed to try to place himself
as near as possible to the complainant and the accused in an
unobtrusive manner to overhear the conversation as well as to
see the acceptance of bribe by the accused. After completion of
pre trap proceeding, a memorandum (Ext.10) was prepared
which was signed by all the members of trap team including
both the independent witnesses as well as the complainant.
Thereafter, the trap team proceeded towards SECCSL office
and reached there at about 4.55 P.M. on the same day. At about
5.15 P.M. the complainant (P.W.8) along with shadow witness
Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) entered into the office of the accused
Pradeep Kumar where he was sitting. After exchanging of
wishing in Hindi by saying "Namaskar”, the accused also
reciprocated the same by gesture and told that cheques were
ready and he was waiting for him (the complainant).
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
4
2026:JHHC:32730
Upon this the complainant asked “whether his all cheques
are ready”? The accused replied affirmatively and asked to the
complainant whether he has brought money. The complainant
answered in affirmative. The accused directed the complainant
to keep the money below the file kept on the cooler lying in
front of the table of the accused. Then the complainant took
out the tainted G.C. notes from his pocket of wearing trouser
and kept the same below the file which was kept on the said
Cooler. The above conversation and transaction of bribe
amount was clearly over heard and seen by the independent
witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) who was present in the office
room and also by O.P. Sharma (P.W.4) and Inspector
K.K.Singh (P.W.9) who were standing there. Thereafter, the
accused asked the complainant to sign on the vouchers. The
complainant sat down on a chair lying there and started
signing the vouchers. In the meantime Inspector (P.W.9) along
with K. K. Singh, S. K. Sinha (P.W.6) and witness O.P. Sharma
(P.W.4) entered into the office of the accused. The inspector K.
K. Singh after disclosing his identity as well as other CBI trap
team members who are present in the said office room
challenged the accused for having demanded and accepted
bribe of Rs.6000/- from the complainant. Then, the accused
became nervous and told " Mai Rupaye Manga Nahi Tha
Khushi Se Ye Diye Hai”. Thereafter, the accused declared
arrested. On disclosure of the accused, tainted G.C. notes of
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
5
2026:JHHC:32730
Rs.6000/- were recovered from the said Air Cooler by the
independent witness O.P. Sharma (P.W.4), who compared and
tallied the number and denomination of the recovered G.C.
notes with the number and denomination of the G.C. notes as
recorded in pre trap Memorandum (Ext.10) with the help of
another witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) and the same were
tallied in toto. The said recovered notes were kept in an
envelope which was duly sealed and signed by all concerned.
Thereafter, the accused was subjected to personal search but
nothing incriminating was found on his person. However, a
personal search memo (Ext. 12) was prepared and a copy of
arrest memo (Ext.11) was given to the accused. The office table
of the accused was also searched and four number of vouchers
(Ext. 1 to 1/3) pertaining to issue the cheques of different dates
and its enclosure lying on the table of the accused were seized.
It is alleged that due to law and order problem created at the
place of occurrence, the trap team members left the said office
and proceeded for the house of the accused where search of
the house was made and thereafter, memorandum of recovery
and seizure (Ext.14) was prepared.
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 13.08.2007. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
6
2026:JHHC:32730
8. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the
appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether (Nine) 9
witnesses:-
P.W.-1 Jai Ram Oraon
P.W.-2 Jagdish Singh
P.W.-3 Ram Awatar
P.W.-4 Om Prakash Sharma (Independent
Witness)
P.W.-5 Vidyapati Choudhary
P.W.-6 S.K. Sinha (Verifying Officer)
P.W.-7 Ashok Kumar (Independent Witness)
P.W.-8 Jitendra Kumar Singh (Complainant)
P.W.-9 K.K. Singh (I.O.)
9. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution
has adduced following documentary evidence:-
Ext.-1 to 1/3 Vouchers relating to supply of
articles by the firm of the complainant.
Ext.-1/4 to 1/7 Signatures of the Treasurer at the
SAIL SECCSL Ranchi on vouchers
Ext.-2 to 2/3 Cheques drawn in favour of firm of
the Accused
Ext.-2/4 to 2/7 Signatures of treasurers of SECCSL
on Cheques
Ext.-3 Sanction Order
Ext.-4 to 4/59 Signatures of witnesses on different
material exhibits and different documents
Ext.-5 Endorsement of P.W.-5 regarding
receipt of copy of letter dated 06.07.2007 written by
Inspector K.K. Singh to P.W.-5
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
7
2026:JHHC:32730
Ext.-6 Letter dated 06.07.2007 written by
P.W.-5 to Inspector K.K. Singh
Ext.-7 Written report of the complainant
Ext.-8 to 8/3 Signature of P.W.-8 J.K. Singh on the
vourchers of SAIL
Ext. -9 F.I.R.
Ext.-10 Pre-trap Memorandum
Ext.-11 Personal Search Memo of Accused
Ext.-12 Memorandum of Arrest
Ext.-13 Memo of recovery and seizure
Ext.-14 Search List dated 19.06.2007 made
from the house of the accused
10. The prosecution has also adduced 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 Sealed Envelope Containing G.C. Notes
recovered and seized from the office of the accused
M. Ext.-V to V/17 G.C. Notes recovered from the
cooler of the office
11. On the other hand, the defence has also examined following
two witnesses:-
D.W.-1 Ashwini Kumar Sinha
D.W.-2 Ashok Kumar Jha
12. Apart from the above oral testimony, following documentary
evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence:-
Ext.-A Certified Copy of Deposition of P.W.-4
(O.P. Sharma) in R.C. Case No. 11A/2006(R)
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
8
2026:JHHC:32730
Ext. –B Bye-Laws of SAIL Employer Consumer
Co-operative Society Limited
Ext.-C to I Different dates of Letters
13. 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 appelalnt for the offence as stated above which has been
assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellant: -
14. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
of the appellant, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has
vehemently argued and raised following points:-
It is an admitted case of the prosecution that no bribe
amount was recovered and seized from the conscious
possession of the appellant and the evidence of
complainant as well as shadow witnesses does not
prove in clear terms that the appellant have ever
demanded any amount of money of Rs. 6000/- as illegal
gratification for passing the bills and issuing the
cheques in favour of the complainant.
The G.C. Notes have also not been recovered from the
conscious possession of the appellant, as such, very
important limbs for constituting the offence under
Section 7 of the P.C. Act i.e. “Demand”, “Acceptance”
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
9
2026:JHHC:32730
and “Recovery” of the bribe amount have not been
proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is
absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside.
It is further submitted that the complaint (P.W.-8) and
independent witness P.W.-4 and P.W.-7 alleged to be
shadow witnesses have given mutually destructive
statement regarding initiation of conversation between
the complainant and the accused and as regards, the
demand of money and its recovery. Therefore, their
evidence cannot be relied upon.
It is further submitted that written complaint was
lodged on 12:30 PM, the same was got verified and its
report was submitted and the pre-trap proceeding was
concluded till 4:55 PM. Therefore, within four hours, all
exercise has been completed in a haste at the instance of
the complainant. The C.B.I. has called upon Shadow
witnesses who are professionals and have given evidnce
in several trap cases, therefore, they have become
professionals. It is further submitted that the appellant
was not a competent authority to pay the bills of the
complainant. The bills submitted by the complainant
itself was not attached with Form-9C which is
mandatory for passing the bills as such there was no
question of payment of bills of the complainant.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
10
2026:JHHC:32730
The very vital aspect of the case is that as per the
complainant, his cheques for discharging the bills were
prepared but have not been given due to non-payment
of bribe money but the alleged cheques issued in favour
of the complainant has not been seized and brought on
record as evidence. Therefore, the very genesis of the
prosecution case becomes doubtful.
It is further submitted that since the bills of the
complainant could not be processes without support of
Form 9-C, therefore, due to anguish, in connivance with
C.B.I. officials, he has lodged this false case. The
prosecution has miserably failed to prove necessary
ingredients of the offence charged against him,
therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence of the appellant is liable to be side aside
allowing this appeal.
Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has also placed his
reliance upon the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Satvir Singh vs. State of Delhi through CBI
reported as (2014) 13 SCC 143 .
Submissions on behalf of the State-CBI
15. 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, scrutinized and
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
11
2026:JHHC:32730
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 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 appellant. During trap
proceeding, the demand, acceptance and recovery has been
proved which was in connection with passing the bills of the
complainant. It is also submitted that if any work is pending
before the accused, and there is demand, acceptance and
recovery of bribe money, the presumption under Section 20 of
the P.C. Act can be raised. 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.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I.
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State
has place reliance in the matter of
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [ (2023) 4 SCC 731].
Analysis, reasons and decision :
16. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
12
2026:JHHC:32730
judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of
respective parties.
17. 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?”
18. 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 Jai Ram Oraon is the then Deputy Manager,
SAIL-cum-Executive Officer, SECCSL, Ranchi where the
appellant was also the employee who has deposed that
Pradeep Kumar was looking after work of Account and
Finance in SECCSL, Ranchi and it was his duty to maintain
record of daily sell, vouchers, preparation of cheque and
delivery of the same to the person concerned. He further
deposed that during the said period different product of
Hindustan Lever Co. were purchased by SECCSL by its
distributors M/s Maa Geevachh Co. Ltd. and proprietor of
the said company was Jitendra Kumar. This witness has
further identified and proved handwriting and signatures on
four vouchers i ssued by SECCSL in favour of M/s Maa
Geevachh Co. Enterprises. He has further deposed that after
passing of the vouchers, four cheques were prepared by the
accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
13
2026:JHHC:32730
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that
suppliers have to enclose "Form-9 C" along with bills
presented by him for payment proving that supplier has
paid sale tax but vouchers submitted by the complainant
was not attached with Form-9C. This witness also admits
that vouchers are passed by Treasurer and cheques are
prepared by Pradeep Kumar but the same is signed by
Secretary.
P.W.2 Jagdish Singh who was the Director- in- charge,
R.D.C.I.S. SAIL, Ranchi from October, 2006 to March, 2009.
And he was competent authority to remove Dr. Pradeep
Kumar (the accused) from his service. He has also supported
the fact that accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar was posted as
Section Officer, SAIL who was to look after Accounts work in
SECCSL. This witness had accorded sanction for prosecution
against the accused.
In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion
that he has not applied his mind in order to accord sanction.
P.W.3 Ram Awatar is also an employee of the SAIL,
Ranchi. Who has also stated that the appellant was to look
after the account work. He has further stated that all the
cheques issued from the Honourary society is signed by
Treasurer and counter signed by the Secretary. In absence of
secretary the cheque has to be counter signed by the
Chairman. This witness has stated that M/s Maa Geevachh
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
14
2026:JHHC:32730
Enterprises was also one of the suppliers of goods to
SECCSL but Form-9 "C" was submitted by the said firm
alongwith its vouchers or not, he could not tell expressing
his no knowledge whether Form-9 "C" was submitted by the
aforesaid firms in the year of 2005-06 or not. This witness
has also admitted the fact in para 7 that the responsibility of
accounts rests upon treasurer.
P.W.4 Om Prakash Sharma is an independent witness
(Shadow Witness) who has deposed that CBI Inspector K.K.
Singh (P.W.9) introduced this witness with the complainant
Jitendra Kumar Singh (P.W.8) and other CBI Officers sitting
there. Ashok Kumar, another shadow witness, Public Relation
Inspector of his Office was also present there and this witness
was explained about the complaint with regard to demand of
bribe by the appellant and about the pre trap proceedings
including use and demonstration of phenolphthalein powder
and after completing all the formalities, all the G.C. notes
were treated by phenolphthalein and thereafter, said notes
were returned to the complainant with direction that he
would give the same to the accused when bribe would be
demanded by him otherwise not and at about 4:00 P.M.
alongwith trap team members proceeded for SAIL co-
operative by two vehicles and reached there at about 4:20
P.M. This witness further states that the complainant Jitendra
Singh entered in the office of the accused, wished him then
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
15
2026:JHHC:32730
the accused told that his all the cheques were ready and
demanded bribe money from the complainant. The
complainant took out money from his pocket to give but
accused Pradeep Kumar directed the complainant to keep the
money below the file kept on a Cooler situated in front of his
table and complainant signed on those vouchers and gave
signal to the trap team, then, all the members of the trap team
including the CBI Inspector and witness reached there and
recovered the said G.C. notes kept on the cooler and all post-
trap formalities were completed.
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he
has no documentary proof that his controlling officer directed
him to go CBI Office. He himself stated that verbal direction
was given to him.
P.W.5 Vidhyapati Chaudhary the then Branch
Manager of SBI , who has only proved the letter sent by the
C.B.I. Officers which has been marked as Ext-6.
P.W.6 Sanjay Kumar Sinha is the then Inspector CBI,
ACB, Ranchi who has verified the complaint by only
interrogating with the complainant in the C.B.I. office and
submitted his report.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the
complainant was present in the office of CBI and he orally
interrogated to the complainant regarding the allegation
and no statement of the complainant was recorded by him .
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
16
2026:JHHC:32730
P.W.7 Ashok Kumar is independent-cum-shadow
witness who is professional in witnessing the pre-trap and
post-trap proceedings as and when required by the C.B.I.
Similarly, as per direction of Sr. Postal Superintendent,
Ranchi he along with another shadow witness Om Prakash
Sharma went to CBI Office and were introduced with the
complainant. He has further deposed that after completion of
pre-trap formalities, they reached at co-operative society
situated at SAIL Town, Ranchi. This witness has stated that he
and complainant entered in the office room of the accused
Pradeep Kumar and asked the accused whether his bill and
cheques are ready? The accused answered affirmatively and
asked whether the complainant has brought money? The
complainant replied "Yes" and took out tainted money from
his pocket of wearing trouser to give but the appellant
directed to keep the bribe money below the file kept on the
Cooler placed in front of his table and the complainant kept
the G.C. Notes as per direction and the complainant signed
on some bills/ papers and signal was raised, all the members
rushed and on the direction of CBI inspector the money was
recovered by witness Om Prakash Sharma (P.W.4) and the
same was tallied with the numbers of notes mentioned in the
pre trap memorandum which matched and further post-trap
formalities were done. This witness in para 12 to 16 of his
deposition has stated that he cannot tell the direction of
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
17
2026:JHHC:32730
office room , how many chairs for other officials were in the
office of the accused and where the accused was sitting is
also not known by this witness. He has also expressed his
unawareness regarding the way to the office of the accused
after entry from main gate. Further, he has also expressed
his unawareness with regard to total number of members in
the raiding party. He has also no knowledge that where all
the raiding parties had taken their position to witness the
post-trap proceedings. This witness has also expressed his
unawareness with respect to position of cooler in the office
of the accused which is alleged that money was kept upon
the cooler.
P.W.8 Jitendra Kumar Singh , complainant, one of the
partner as well as proprietor of M/s Maa Geevachh
Enterprises has deposed that payment for supply of some
goods was pending since June, 2007 and for that purpose, he
met with the accused and the accused demanded illegal
gratification of Rs. 8,000/- at the rate of 10% of the bill
amount and as this witness was not willing to give bribe
money, he met with S.P. CBI, Ranchi on 19.06.2007 and
submitted a complaint. The S.P. CBI sent him to S.K. Sinha
(P.W.6) who interrogated him about the matter. And asked
him to come in the office of CBI with Rs. 8,000/- and
accordingly, he at about 12:30 P.M. again went to CBI office.
This Witness has further stated that when he again reached in
the office of CBI, Ranchi Inspector K.K. Singh (P.W.9),
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
18
2026:JHHC:32730
Inspector S.K. Sinha (P.W.6), other personnel of CBI and
witnesses O.P. Sharma (P.W.4) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.7)
were present there and was introduced with pre-trap
formalities and the same were completed including two G.C.
Notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/-, six G.C. Notes of
denomination of Rs. 500/- and ten G.C. notes of
denomination of Rs. 100/- total amounting to Rs. 6,000/-
which were noted down with denomination of the said G.C.
notes, smeared the white powder on the notes and returned
the same to him with direction that the tainted G.C. Notes
should be given to the accused only when the bribe money
was demanded by the accused otherwise not and Ashok
Kumar (P.W.7) was directed to remain along with him, so that
he (P.W.7) may see the transaction of bribe money between
the complainant and the accused and may also over hear
conversation between the both. He has further stated that he
along with witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.6) entered into SAIL
co-operative building where accused Pradeep Kumar was
sitting in his office. He wished the accused and asked that
whether his cheques are ready? The accused replied
affirmatively then, this witness requested him to hand over
the cheque. The accused asked whether he had brought
money. This witness took out the money and tried to give to
the accused but he did not take money and asked him
(P.W.8) to keep the money in the file kept on the Cooler and
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
19
2026:JHHC:32730
the same was kept there. Thereafter, he came outside the
room and gave pre fixed signal upon which CBI team reached
there. CBI Inspector K.K. Singh (P.W.9) introduced himself
and challenged the accused for demanding and accepting the
bribe, the accused firstly refused for accepting bribe but on
interrogation the accused accepted that he has taken money
but he has not demanded the money rather the same was
given by the complainant voluntarily . When it was asked
that where is the money? The accused indicated towards the
said file kept on the cooler. Then, upon instruction of the
Inspector (P.W.9), witnesses Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) and Om
Prakash (P.W.4) recovered the tainted notes from the said file
and tallied the number of recovered notes from the numbers
mentioned in the memo of pre trap proceeding (Ext-10) and
all numbers were matched completely and sealed in an
envelop which was signed by the all present including
himself and accused was arrested and was taken to his
residence where search of his residence was made and an
inventory of his property was prepared.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he
has no document with regard to the fact that he met with the
accused on 17.6.2007 and there is no witness of the fact that
accused demanded Rs. 8,000/- as bribe on 17.6.2007. He has
further admitted that the supplier has to submit Form-9C
regarding payment of Sale Tax along with the bills
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
20
2026:JHHC:32730
presented for payment before the society but in the year
2006 which ever payment was received by him for the said
firm, neither Form-9 "C" was asked to be submitted by the
society nor the same was submitted along with the bills
presented for payment before the society. He has further
stated that सेल कोआपरेिटव सोसाइटी के बाहर प Š ँचने के 15-20
िमिनट्स बाद हमलोग अंदर गए और उस सोसाइटी के िब İʒ ंग की चौह Ȟ ी
नहीं बता सकता š ँ उस कमरे का दरवाज़ा िकस िदशा म Ő है नहीं बता
सकता š ँ उस कमरे म Ő एक और आदमी बैठा था नहीं पहचानता š ँ
P.W.9 K.K. Singh
is the then Inspector
CBI/ACB/Ranchi, main leader of the trap team and I.O. of
this case. He deposed that on 19.6.2007 the complainant
Jitendra Singh (P.W.8) filed a written complaint before the
S.P. CBI, Ranchi alleging therein that the accused Pradeep
Kumar, the then Section Officer, SAIL Co-operative society
has demanded Rs. 8,000/- as illegal gratification for issuance
of cheque regarding payment of the bills total amounting to
Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the complainant against supplies of
various goods to the co- operative society and after
verification by S.K. Sinha, F.I.R. was lodged and investigation
of the case was handed over to this witness. Accordingly,
trap team was constituted and two independent witnesses
namely O.P. Sharma (P.W.4) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) were
arranged through their controlling officers. On 19.06.2007 at
about 2:15 P.M. all the aforesaid trap team members, both
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
21
2026:JHHC:32730
independent witnesses and the complainant Jitendra Singh
(P.W.8) assembled in the CBI Office and they were introduced
to one another and were explained the use of phenolphthalein
powder and sodium carbonate which was followed by a
practical demonstration and all other formalities were done
and instructed that after reaching in the office of the accused,
the complainant would negotiate the bribe matter with the
accused in an audible manner so that the conversation be over
heard by the witnesses present in and to give a signal after
acceptance of bribe money by the accused. He further
deposed that witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) was directed to
accompany the complainant to listen the conversation
between the both and also observe acceptance of bribe money
by the accused. The witness O.P. Sharma (P.W.4) and
members of trap team were also instructed to try to place
themselves in vicinity. He has further deposed that at about
4:20 P.M. entire team was proceeded for SAIL Township,
Ranchi and reached there at 16:55 P.M. He has further
deposed that at about 17:55 P.M. the complainant (P.W.8) and
shadow witness Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) were asked to enter in
the office room of the accused and negotiate the bribe matter.
In the meantime, members of trap team took their position in
near vicinity of the office and he (P.W.9) along with witnesses
O.P. Sharma placed themselves at the door of the said office.
He further stated that the complainant alongwith witnesses
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
22
2026:JHHC:32730
Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) entered in the office room of the
accused and wished him and the accused reciprocated with
gesture and said "I have kept ready cheques and waiting for
you." The complainant asked whether cheques for his all bills
are ready”? The accused replied affirmatively and asked
whether he had brought money. The complainant replied that
he has brought Rs. 6,000/- and rest amount would be paid
within one or two days. Then, the accused directed the
complainant to keep the money beneath the file kept on the
Cooler placed there and the complainant did so and on signal,
this witness introduced himself and challenged the accused
that he has demanded and accepted the bribe then, the
appellant told that he has not demanded money and the
money was given by the complainant voluntarily and the
accused was arrested and on his disclosure bribe money was
recovered by witness O.P. Sharma which was kept below the
file on the Cooler placed in front of the accused in the office.
P.W.9 has further testified that as directed, both the
independent witnesses O.P. Sharma and Ashok Kumar tallied
the number and denomination of recovered notes with the
number and denomination of the notes mentioned in the pre
trap memorandum (Ext-10). Thereafter, recovered notes were
kept and sealed in an envelope which was signed by all the
members of the trap team and after completing all other post-
trap formalities, at about 18:30 hours, he alongwith accused
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
23
2026:JHHC:32730
and entire trap team went to the house of accused and search
of the house of the accused was conducted. A memo of
recovery and seizure and an inventory was prepared there.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that
the questions asked by the witnesses and answer given by the
complainant during pre trap proceeding has not been
mentioned in the diary. He further deposed that it has been
mentioned in pre trap memorandum that trap team was
constituted by S.P. CBI. He deposed that in para-2 of the case
diary, he has mentioned that on the request of S.P. CBI two
employees of Postal Department were sent to observe the
proceeding as independent witnesses. He also admits that
vouchers were seized from the table of the accused but
cheques were not seized, so that the complainant could get
payment of the same.
19. On the other hand, D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 and both of them has
proved letters.
20. 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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
24
2026:JHHC:32730
service or disservice to any person, with the Central
Government or any State Government or Parliament or
the Legislature of any State or with any local authority,
corporation or Government company referred to in
clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant,
whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment which shall be not less than six months
but which may extend to five years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanations —(a) “Expecting to be a public servant”.
If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a
gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is
about to be in office, and that he will then serve them,
he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the
offence defined in this section.
(b) “Gratification”. The word “gratification” is not
restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications
estimable in money.
(c) “Legal remuneration”. The words “legal
remuneration” are not restricted to remuneration which
a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all
remuneration which he is permitted by the Government
or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.
(d) “A motive or reward for doing”. A person who
receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing
what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or
has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person
erroneously to believe that his influence with the
Government has obtained a title for that person and
thus induces that person to give the public servant,
money or any other gratification as a reward for this
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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
25
2026:JHHC:32730
(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.”
21. 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.
22. 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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
26
2026:JHHC:32730
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.”
23. 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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
27
2026:JHHC:32730
a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public
servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a
demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders
the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the
public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification
emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under
Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-
giver and the demand by the public servant respectively
have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In
other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
gratification without anything more would not make it an
offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii),
respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the
Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an
offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted
by the public servant which would make it an offence.
Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when
accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment
made which is received by the public servant, would be an
offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of
the Act.
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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
28
2026:JHHC:32730
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.”
24. In the instant case, the evidence of witnesses as discussed
above especially the evidence of P.W.-1, it appears that the
complainant had filed its vouchers without attaching Form-
9C. The complainant was not furnishing the Form-9C as was
required for passing his bills and delivery of cheques in
satisfaction of the bills. Moreover, P.W.-3 has also fortified the
fact that whether Form-9 "C" was submitted by the said firm
along with its vouchers or not, is not clear. It is further
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
29
2026:JHHC:32730
revealed from the evidence of P.W.-3 that all the cheques
issued from the Honourary society are signed by Treasurer
and counter signed by the Secretary and in absence of
secretary, the cheque has to be counter signed by the
Chairman and there was no duty of the appellant to hand
over the cheques in discharge of the bills. It is also revealed
from the evidence of complainant himself that he was partner
of the said firm and used to supply various textiles,
consumable items of Hindustan Liver to the said co-operative
society in the last financial year 2005-2006. The said firm was
not registered with sales tax department in order to avoid
sales tax. It is further revealed from the evidence of P.W.-4
O.P. Sharma as well as (P.W.-9) I.O. that the currency notes
were put below the file. The complainant also told him that he
has kept the money below the file, and the currency notes
were recovered from the same place where the complainant
had put the same but not from the possession of the appellant
as alleged. Therefore in such circumstances, there is no
involvement of the appellant either in demanding or
accepting illegal gratification in the post-trap proceedings
wherein the appellant has not even touched the money as
alleged to be demanded by the appellant which casts a doubt
upon the prosecution story. Therefore, the prosecution
witnesses have failed to prove the demand, acceptance and
recovery of bribe money as alleged by the complainant.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
30
2026:JHHC:32730
Moreover, it appears that it was initially demanded Rs.
8000/-, thereafter, two installments were fixed but no
evidence has been brought on record. The learned trial Court
has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary
evidence which clearly indicates that the complainant
desiring to press his bills illegally and without observing the
legal procedure and upon objection raised by the appellant,
complainant has falsely implicated the appellant in this case.
The learned trial Court has also failed to consider that the
sanction order was not issued by the competent authority.
25. 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. 497 of 2014
31
2026:JHHC:32730
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 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.” (Emphasis Supplied)”
26. Therefore, there is complete absence of any demand of bribe
made by the accused, its acceptance and recovery as alleged
by the complainant and, I find substance in the points of
argument raised on behalf of the appellant that the appellant
was not competent to issue any cheques in satisfaction of the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
32
2026:JHHC:32730
bills of the complainant rather it was the duty of the Secretary
of the society to sign the same before the delivery of cheques.
As discussed above, I also find substance in the points of
argument that vouchers which were submitted by the
complainant were not duly attached with Form-9C as per the
evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 and thus the above formalities
were required to be completed by the complainant by
submitting Form-9C which may be the reason behind non-
issuance of cheques of the complainant. Thus, this creates
doubts regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. Therefore,
the benefit of doubt may be given to the appellant.
27. In the above factual background, the ingredients of either
offence under Section 7 & 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is absolutely not
attracted against the appellant. The learned trial Court has
believed the testimony of the witnesses only on conjecturing
and the observations of the learned trial Court are absolutely
beyond the record. The totality of circumstances as proved by
the prosecution clearly proves the innocence of the appellant.
28. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I find substance
in the above points of argument raised on behalf of the
appellant and merits in this appeal. Accordingly, impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant
is hereby set aside and he is acquitted from the charges
leveled against him.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
33
2026:JHHC:32730
29. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the
liabilities of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged.
30. In result, this appeal is allowed.
31. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
32. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 06/11/2026
Basant /
NAFR
Uploaded On: 06/11/2026
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 497 of 2014
34