Mere Recovery of Tainted Notes Without Proof of Prior Demand Cannot Sustain Corruption Conviction

The Respondent, an Assistant Electrical Inspector, was accused of demanding illegal gratification to process a temporary electricity connection.

The ACB Surat arranged a "decoy trap" using a private individual (Pravinbhai Kahar) and panch witnesses.

During the trap, the decoy allegedly offered ₹2000/-, which the Respondent instructed be pinned to the documents and placed in an envelope.

The ACB raided the office, recovered the tainted currency from an envelope on the Respondent's table, and found traces of anthracene powder on one of his hands.

The Trial Court (Special ACB Judge, Surat) acquitted the Respondent on 17.01.2007.

The State appealed this acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the foundational requirement of "demand" and "conscious acceptance" of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the findings of the Trial Court were perverse or based on a misreading of evidence justifying interference in an appeal against acquittal.

The Court applied Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence" and the principle that if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must prevail.

Regarding the Prevention of Corruption Act (Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2)), the Court relied on Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), establishing that proof of demand and acceptance is a sine qua non for conviction.

It further noted that mere recovery of money without proof of demand or conscious acceptance is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

The High Court observed that the prosecution’s case suffered from fatal gaps. Most notably, the "decoy" (the primary witness to the demand) was never examined, nor were other material witnesses like the peon or the clerk present during the transaction.

The evidence of the panch witness (PW1) suggested that the decoy offered the money voluntarily rather than the accused demanding it.

The Respondent provided a plausible defense under Section 313 CrPC, stating the documents provided by the decoy were suspicious and imaginary (later confirmed by the IO), and that the money in his possession was for his niece’s marriage expenses.

The Court found that since the money was inside an envelope and folded papers, the mere trace of powder on the hand did not conclusively prove "conscious acceptance" in light of the missing demand.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal.

Applying the standards for acquittal appeals, the Court found no manifest illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s reasoning.

The Respondent's bail bonds were cancelled.