Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) requires proof of demand and acceptance; mere recovery is insufficient.

The complainant applied for registration of an NGO, “Bananchal Kalyan Samiti,” and alleged that the appellant demanded ₹2,500 as illegal gratification for processing the registration. He lodged a complaint before the Vigilance Department on 23 January 2002, following which the allegation was verified, an FIR was registered, and a trap was organised on 24 January 2002. Phenolphthalein-treated currency notes were allegedly handed to the complainant, who thereafter met the appellant at the registration office. The trap team claimed that the appellant was apprehended and that the tainted money was recovered from him

The appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence, with a fine of ₹5,000 for each offence; the sentences were directed to run concurrently

In appeal, the appellant contended that the complainant had actually interacted with another person who falsely represented himself as Mithilesh Kumar Singh, that the appellant never demanded or accepted any bribe, and that the tainted money was thrown on the ground rather than accepted by him. The complainant’s evidence in cross-examination supported these aspects. The seizure witnesses also did not support the alleged recovery in their presence

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted illegal gratification for performing an official act, thereby committing an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

Whether the trial court’s conviction and sentence suffered from legal or evidentiary error warranting appellate interference?

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in their pre-2018 form.

It held that proof of the foundational facts of demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)–(ii); mere recovery of tainted money, without proof of demand and the requisite acceptance or obtainment, is insufficient.

The Court relied on K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574, reiterating the principle in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152, and on Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731.

Neeraj Dutta further explains that demand and acceptance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence; under Section 7, an offer by the bribe-giver accepted by the public servant may suffice, whereas under Section 13(1)(d), prior demand and obtainment by the public servant must be established.

The statutory presumption under Section 20 can arise only after the foundational facts are proved

The Court found that the complainant’s evidence materially undermined the prosecution case. In cross-examination, he admitted that the person who had earlier demanded the bribe and represented himself as Mithilesh Kumar Singh was not the appellant, and that the appellant had neither demanded nor accepted the money. He further stated that the tainted notes were thrown to the ground and that the appellant had no connection with the allegations

The prosecution did not declare the complainant hostile, and therefore his admissions remained part of the prosecution evidence

The trap-team witnesses did not personally witness any demand or acceptance; most only testified to the alleged recovery after the appellant was apprehended outside the office. The seizure witnesses did not support the search or recovery in their presence, while the prosecution evidence was inconsistent regarding whether the occurrence took place inside the office or on the pitch road near the T.A. Division Building

There was also no shadow witness who overheard a demand, and the complainant admitted that he handed over the money without any demand from the appellant

Since demand, acceptance, or obtainment by the appellant was not proved, the statutory ingredients of either offence were not established, and no presumption could validly operate against him

The appeal was allowed; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17 November 2017 were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

As he was on bail, he was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds and the sureties were released