Jharkhand HC Acquits Revenue Official, Cashier In Alleged ₹20,000 Bribe Case Over Retired Officer’s Gratuity, Finding Demand Unproved

The complainant, a retired Circle Officer, alleged that Binod Kumar Jha demanded ₹20,000 through Dilip Kumar to facilitate payment of his provisional gratuity.

In a trap on 9 May 2013, the tainted currency was recovered from Dilip Kumar; the prosecution alleged that the complainant had handed it to him.

The trial court convicted Jha under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), and Dilip under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d), while acquitting each of other charged offences.

The appeals were heard together.

The Court considered Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i)–(iii) and 13(2) of the PC Act as applicable before the 2018 amendment.

Applying K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574, Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152, it held that proof of demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification is ordinarily essential to establish the relevant offences; mere recovery is insufficient without proof of demand.

Demand and acceptance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Under Section 20, the legal presumption applicable to Section 7 arises only once the foundational facts are established; it does not apply to offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii).

The Court found the evidence insufficient to prove the required elements.

The complainant testified to Jha’s demand, but the evidence also showed that gratuity had been withheld because of recoverable dues relating to the complainant’s car loan.

The independent witness confirmed the recovery but had not seen Dilip accept the money; the investigating officer and Special Magistrate likewise had not heard or seen the alleged transaction, which reportedly took place inside a car.

The Court also noted that Dilip had no role in processing the complainant’s pension or gratuity, that Jha was not shown to have received or handled the money, and that no SFSL report was produced regarding the chemical examination.

On that record, the Court held that demand and acceptance or obtainment had not been proved, and the presumption under Section 20 could not cure that failure.

As both were on bail, their bail bonds and sureties were discharged; the appeals were allowed.