Proof of Prior Demand is Sine Qua Non for Conviction Under the Prevention of Corruption Act

The Appellant (State) challenged the judgment dated 24.04.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Balangir, acquitting the Respondent.

The prosecution alleged that the Respondent, while serving as a District Welfare Officer (DWO), demanded a bribe of ₹10,000 from the complainant (P.W.1) to process a file for reinstatement into service

A trap was conducted on 15.10.2009, leading to the recovery of treated currency notes

While the prosecution claimed the money was recovered from the Respondent's conscious possession, P.W.4 (an official witness) testified that the money was actually recovered by a constable from outside the office window

Furthermore, the complainant (P.W.1) turned hostile during the trial

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

2. Whether the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act stands rebutted by the defense on a preponderance of probabilities

3. Whether material contradictions regarding the place and manner of recovery of the tainted money vitiate the prosecution’s case

the court primarily applied Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which necessitate proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification

It relied on the Constitutional Bench decision in Neeraj Datta v. State (NCT of Delhi), establishing that "demand and acceptance" are sine qua non for conviction and can be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence

The court further applied the principle that the presumption under Section 20 is rebuttable and the accused need only satisfy the "preponderance of probabilities" standard, rather than "beyond reasonable doubt," to dislodge it

The Court observed that mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction absent independent proof of a prior demand

In this case, the primary witness (P.W.1) turned hostile, leaving no direct evidence of the demand

The Court found the investigation flawed because the "shadow witness" (P.W.2) was an interested party closely associated with the decoy, which undermined the trial's fairness

Crucially, the Court highlighted a fatal contradiction: while some witnesses claimed the money was on the table, P.W.4 categorically stated a constable recovered the envelope from outside the window

These inconsistencies, coupled with the lack of reliable corroboration of the demand, meant the prosecution failed to establish the "foundational facts" necessary to sustain a conviction

The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, finding that the Respondent successfully rebutted the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal (CRLLP), affirming the acquittal of the Respondent and vacating all interim orders