Acceptance of Illegal Gratification and Positive Phenolphthalein Test Establish Guilt Notwithstanding Inability to Perform Official Act.

The appellant, an Inspector at the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU), was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹2,000 (later reduced to ₹1,500) from PW4 for the installation of an electricity meter

On 29.11.1989, a trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) where the appellant allegedly accepted ₹1,500 in tainted currency notes at PW4’s residence

Upon seeing the raiding party, the appellant allegedly threw the money on the ground; subsequently, his hand and pocket washes turned pink

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act)

The appellant challenged this on grounds that the premises were in an unelectrified area, making the official act impossible, and that the "demand" was not proved

1. Whether the inability of the public servant to perform the official act due to technical constraints (unelectrified area) negates the charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification

2. Whether the prosecution proved the foundational facts of "demand" and "acceptance" beyond reasonable doubt despite the panch witness turning partially hostile

The court primarily applied Section 7 of the PC Act regarding public servants taking gratification and Section 13(1)(d) regarding criminal misconduct

Principle from Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi, which holds that whether the accused was actually in a position to show favour is immaterial if a bribe was demanded and accepted

State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, establishing that non-hearing of the bribe conversation by witnesses is not fatal if recovery is proved

Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.), noting that throwing away tainted money is a strong incriminating circumstance

The court also invoked the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act

The Court reasoned that the appellant’s presence at the complainant’s house lacked any legitimate explanation, especially if he had already concluded that no meter could be installed there

Although the panch witness (PW6) was partially hostile, his testimony corroborated the delivery of money and the matching of serial numbers on the recovered notes

The Court rejected the defense that the "unelectrified area" made the demand improbable, citing precedents that the "motive or reward" element of Section 7 does not require the official act to be legally possible

The successful hand and pocket wash tests, supported by the CFSL report, established "conscious acceptance"

The appellant failed to prove his defense or provide a plausible explanation to rebut the Section 20 presumption once the foundational facts of recovery were established

The court held that technical impossibility of the official work does not shield a public servant from corruption charges if the demand and acceptance are established

The conviction and sentence of 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed