Jharkhand HC Acquits SAIL Accounts Employee In ₹6,000 Bribe Case, Finding No Proof Of Demand Or Acceptance Of Cash Recovered From Under A File

The appellant, a Section Officer of SAIL who handled accounts work for the SAIL Employees’ Consumers’ Co-operative Society Ltd., was accused of demanding ₹8,000 from a supplier in return for processing payment of the supplier’s bills.

Following a complaint, the CBI arranged a trap.

The complainant placed ₹6,000 in a file on a cooler in the appellant’s office, where CBI officers later recovered it; the appellant maintained that the money had been given voluntarily.

The Special Judge, CBI, convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed custodial sentences and fines.

He appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)–(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification is essential to establish the offence; recovery alone is insufficient (P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152).

Under Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, demand and acceptance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and a court may draw a factual presumption only where foundational facts are established.

Section 20 requires a legal presumption for an offence under Section 7 once the relevant foundational facts are proved, but does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i)–(ii).

The Court also relied on K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574, reiterating that proof of demand is indispensable.

The Court found that the prosecution had not proved the required demand and acceptance.

The tainted notes were placed by the complainant beneath a file on the cooler and recovered from that location, rather than from the appellant’s person; the Court considered this, together with the evidence, insufficient to establish that the appellant accepted or obtained the money.

It also noted that the appellant was not responsible for signing or authorising the cheques, and that the complainant’s vouchers lacked the required Form 9-C, which could explain why payment had not been made.

In the absence of proof of the foundational facts, the Court held that the presumption under Section 20 could not sustain the Section 7 charge, and that recovery alone could not establish either offence.

As the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from his bail bond and the sureties were also discharged; the appeal was allowed.