Statutory corruption presumption applies upon recovery regardless of the public servant’s actual authority to act.

The Appellant, while serving as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Slum Department of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1986, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹100 from the complainant (PW2)

The gratification was allegedly required to incorporate "No. IV Jawalapuri" on PW2's possession slip for a plot

Following a complaint, the CBI conducted a trap operation on 18.07.1986, during which tainted currency notes were recovered from the Appellant's pant pocket, and his hand-wash tested positive for phenolphthalein

The Trial Court, on 30.06.2003, convicted the Appellant under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine

The Appellant challenged this conviction on grounds of witness contradictions and lack of authority to perform the requested act

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the foundational facts of demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification to sustain a conviction

2. Whether the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt due to minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies and his alleged lack of competence to alter the possession slip

3. Whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Court required modification in light of mitigating circumstances

The Court applied Section 161 of the IPC (bribery) and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (criminal misconduct by a public servant).

It heavily relied on the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the PC Act, which mandates that once the acceptance of gratification is proved, it shall be presumed to be a motive or reward for an official act unless the contrary is proved

Furthermore, the Court cited M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001), which holds that the recovery of tainted currency without a plausible explanation constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance

The Court found that the testimonies of the complainant (PW2), the shadow witness (PW3), and the recovery witness (PW5) consistently proved the demand, acceptance, and subsequent recovery of the tainted money

Although the defense pointed out discrepancies regarding who gave the signal to the raiding party and which specific official recovered the notes, the Court dismissed these as minor procedural inconsistencies that did not affect the core of the prosecution’s case

Applying Section 4 of the PC Act, the Court noted that once acceptance was established, the burden shifted to the Appellant to rebut the presumption of guilt, which he failed to do beyond a mere denial

Additionally, the Court ruled that the Appellant’s legal competence to make the entry on the slip was irrelevant; the offense is complete if a public servant demands and accepts gratification for an act they induce the complainant to believe they can perform

the Court noted mitigating factors: the incident occurred in 1986 (40 years prior), the bribe amount was nominal (₹100), and the Appellant had no prior criminal record

Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the Court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment from one year to six months