Failure to establish deployment and official capacity to collect tax vitiates conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Appellants, a Beldar and a daily-rated Peon respectively, were convicted by a Trial Court for offenses under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case arose from a "source information" raid conducted by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) at the Singhu Border Toll Tax Barrier.

The ACB intercepted three commercial drivers who had crossed the border without toll receipts. These drivers allegedly claimed they paid illegal gratifications of ₹50 and ₹10 to the Appellants to pass without receipts.

During the raid, ₹30 was recovered from Jagdish Chander and ₹120 from Dharamvir Singh.

The Appellants challenged the conviction, citing inconsistencies in witness identification, lack of proof regarding demand, and the presence of an alternative bypass route that commercial drivers used to evade toll.

1. Whether the prosecution established the foundational requirements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Whether the recovery of money from the Appellants could be conclusively linked to the alleged bribe, given the numerical discrepancy between the amount allegedly paid and the amount recovered.

3. Whether the Appellants were officially authorized or duty-bound to collect toll tax and issue receipts based on their service records.

Section 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration) and Section 13 (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The "entire chain" of demand, acceptance, and recovery must be proved for conviction, as seen in State of Lokayuktha Police v. C.B. Nagaraj.

Standards for appreciating ocular evidence from Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, noting that while minor discrepancies are acceptable, contradictions touching the core of the case justify rejecting evidence.

The heightened burden of proof in cases not involving a pre-arranged trap as referenced in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi).

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was fractured by material inconsistencies. While PW-15 identified the Appellants, PW-2 was uncertain ("similar" or "may be the same"), and PW-7 (panch witness) denied that the drivers identified the accused at the spot.

PW-4 turned hostile, claiming no toll barrier existed and that his signature was coerced.

The Court found a "numerical discrepancy": the alleged bribes totaled ₹70, but the search recovered ₹150; without serial number matching or phenolphthalein tests, this recovery could not be legally linked to the alleged gratification.

The Court scrutinized service records (Ex. PW-5/X-4 & X-5), finding the Appellants were only 'Beldars' or 'Peons' whose duties were restricted to checking receipts or diverting traffic, not collecting money or issuing receipts.

The presence of an alternative bypass route through Singhu Village supported the defense's theory that drivers caught without receipts might have fabricated the bribery story to evade penalties.

The Court granted the Appellants the benefit of doubt, finding it unsafe to convict them given the presence of other officials in the booth and the limited scope of the Appellants' duties. The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment dated 08.09.2011 was set aside, and the conviction was quashed.