Madras HC Acquits Sub-Registrar, Says Trial Court Read Rs 2,000 Bribe Demand Into Complainant’s Testimony

The appellant, a Sub-Registrar, was prosecuted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on allegations that she demanded and accepted Rs.2,000 from a property developer’s manager for registering a sale deed.

A trap was laid; tainted currency was recovered from the drawer of the appellant’s office table, and the phenolphthalein test was positive.

The trial court convicted and sentenced her. On appeal, she disputed proof of demand and acceptance, relied on inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts and a defence that the money had been placed in her drawer while she was occupied with registration work, and challenged aspects of the trap and investigation.

The judgment gives inconsistent dates for the trial judgment: 23 July 2019 in paragraph 1 and 27 March 2019 in paragraphs 4 and 25.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded illegal gratification

Whether voluntary acceptance of the tainted money as gratification was proved so as to attract the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act

Whether the appellant’s explanation was sufficiently probable to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case

Whether the conviction and sentence should be set aside

For the alleged 2008 conduct, Section 7 of the PC Act required proof that the public servant accepted, obtained, or agreed to accept gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for an official act; Section 13(1)(d) required proof of obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage through corrupt or illegal means or by abusing official position.

Demand of illegal gratification is a necessary ingredient of the offences, and recovery of currency alone does not establish guilt.

Under Section 20(1), the statutory presumption is available only after acceptance or obtaining of gratification is proved; it applies to Section 7 and the specified offences under Section 13(1)(a) and (b), but not Section 13(1)(d).

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, permits demand to be proved by circumstantial evidence where direct evidence is unavailable, but does not dispense with proof of demand.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 confines evidence to statements made by witnesses before the court; a court cannot supply words absent from a witness’s testimony.

An accused may rebut a presumption or raise reasonable doubt by showing a defence to be probable on a preponderance of probabilities.

The court found that PW2’s deposition did not state the amount allegedly demanded or handed over, yet the trial court read “2000 rupees” into his testimony.

The complaint and trap records could not substitute for substantive proof, and the prosecution identified no independent evidence establishing the earlier demand.

The positive test and recovery did not, without proof that the money was accepted as gratification, trigger Section 20.

The court also considered inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts, evidence that the appellant was registering the next document at the relevant time, and the appellant’s explanation that the money had been placed in her drawer while she was occupied.

The alleged motive arising from the dispute over property valuation, together with the identified lapses in the trap and investigation, further weakened the prosecution case; the court treated those lapses as supporting circumstances rather than deciding that any one of them independently vitiated the trial.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, cancelled any bail bond, and directed that any fine paid be refunded.