Jharkhand HC Acquits Postal Inspector In ₹1,000 Bribery Case, Finding Demand Was Not Proved

The appellant, a postal Sub-Divisional Inspector, was conducting a departmental enquiry into an alleged withdrawal of Rs. 4,000 from a depositor’s account by the complainant, a Branch Postmaster.

The complainant alleged that on 27 May 2000 the appellant demanded Rs. 1,000 in return for a favourable enquiry report and asked him to bring the money to the appellant’s residence on 31 May 2000.

After a complaint and verification, the CBI laid a trap; the prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted the tainted currency, which was recovered from him

The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed concurrent terms of imprisonment and fines

The appellant appealed, disputing proof of demand, acceptance and recovery, and relying, among other matters, on evidence that the enquiry report was already ready or submitted on 30 May 2000

Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification is essential to establish the relevant offences; recovery of money, without proof of demand, is insufficient

In K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574, and Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that demand and acceptance must be proved, whether by direct or circumstantial evidence; the presumption under Section 20 applies to Section 7 only after the foundational facts are established and is rebuttable

The Court also relied on P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152, for the rule that mere possession or recovery of currency, absent proof of demand, does not establish the offences under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), nor permit the Section 20 presumption to arise

The Court found the evidence concerning the alleged demand unreliable.

The shadow witnesses’ accounts did not consistently establish that they heard the relevant conversation, and the Court noted discrepancies about their positions during the trap

It also considered the departmental enquiry report, which the evidence indicated was ready or submitted on 30 May 2000, before the trap, as relevant to the defence contention that the complainant had a motive to implicate the appellant

The alleged words at the trap—asking whether the complainant had brought Rs. 1,000—did not, in the Court’s view, establish the requisite demand and acceptance of a bribe.

Because the foundational facts were not proved, recovery and the post-trap proceedings could not sustain the conviction or trigger the Section 20 presumption

It set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, discharged him from his bail bond, and allowed the appeal