Proof of demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification sustains conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The appellant, a railway parcel clerk at Hatia Railway Station, was alleged to have demanded ₹100 as illegal gratification from Nirmal Kumar Bengani for booking and transporting his motorcycle to Samastipur, in addition to the lawful booking charge of ₹203.

The complainant lodged a written complaint before the CBI on 27 April 1995. After verification, the CBI organised a trap in the presence of two independent witnesses, P.W.4 Shishir Kujur and P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad.

During the trap, the appellant allegedly demanded and accepted the tainted ₹100 note, which was recovered from his table drawer. His hand-wash allegedly turned pink, and the CFSL report confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate.

The appellant was prosecuted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 7 and one-and-a-half years under Section 13(2), with fines; the sentences were to run concurrently.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted ₹100 as illegal gratification in connection with the discharge of his official duty, thereby attracting Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

Whether the alleged inconsistencies regarding the trap proceedings, the motorcycle’s ownership and booking formalities, the journey ticket, and the evidence of the shadow witnesses created reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?

Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court required modification considering the appellant’s age, the lapse of time and other mitigating circumstances?

The Court applied Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as applicable before the 2018 amendment. Demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification are foundational requirements for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d); mere recovery of tainted currency or a positive phenolphthalein test is insufficient without proof of demand and acceptance.

Once the prosecution establishes acceptance or obtainment of gratification other than legal remuneration, Section 20 requires a presumption that it was accepted as a motive or reward for an official act, subject to rebuttal by the accused.

The Court relied on V. Sejappa v. State by Police Inspector, Lokayukta, (2016) 12 SCC 150, for the requirement of foundational proof and the standard of rebuttal; Rajesh Gupta v. State through CBI, (2022) 20 SCC 793, regarding the need for reliable proof of demand and acceptance; and Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 731, holding that demand and acceptance may be proved by direct, documentary or circumstantial evidence, and that the statutory presumption under Section 20 follows only after foundational facts are established.

The Court found that the appellant’s status as a public servant and parcel clerk was established through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. The complainant’s testimony that the appellant demanded ₹100 over and above the lawful ₹203 booking charge was corroborated by the shadow witnesses, particularly P.W.4, who stated that he heard the demand and saw the payment of the tainted note into the appellant’s drawer.

The recovery of the specifically identified currency note from the drawer, the positive hand-wash test, the seizure documents and the CFSL report together established acceptance and recovery.

The Court held that the use of the expression “extra charge” rather than “bribe” did not undermine the prosecution case, since the appellant could not explain the demand for an amount beyond the lawful booking fee.

It rejected the objections concerning the complainant’s ownership of the motorcycle, the missing journey ticket and alleged deviations from booking procedure as immaterial to the proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The Court also held that non-examination of the officer who conducted the initial verification was not fatal because the material facts were proved during trial through consistent oral, documentary and scientific evidence.

Since the foundational facts were established, the presumption under Section 20 arose, and the appellant offered no satisfactory explanation or rebuttal.

However, while affirming the conviction, the Court considered the occurrence to be nearly three decades old, the appellant’s age of over 75 years, his age-related ailments, dismissal from service and the fact that it was his first offence. It therefore found the original custodial sentence disproportionate and reduced it to the statutory minimum.

The sentence under Section 7 was reduced from rigorous imprisonment of one year to simple imprisonment of six months, and the sentence under Section 13(2) was reduced from rigorous imprisonment of one-and-a-half years to simple imprisonment of one year. The fines were maintained, and both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The appellant’s bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the trial court within two months, failing which coercive steps were authorised.