01Facts
The complainant, a supplier to Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), alleged that the appellant, a CCL executive handling bills, demanded ₹1,500 to process a set of pending bills.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–6The CBI laid a trap on 23 May 1995, during which ₹1,500 in treated currency notes was recovered from the appellant.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–6The Special Judge, CBI, convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed concurrent sentences.
p. 1 · ¶ 2The complainant was declared hostile; he testified that he had placed the money in the appellant’s pocket without a demand.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 17The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence.
p. 1 · ¶ 202Issues
i.1. Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain the appellant’s convictions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
p. 9 · ¶ 16 · pp. 16–19 · ¶ 19–21ii.2. Whether the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence disclosed an error of law warranting appellate interference
p. 9 · ¶ 1603Law Applied
Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)–(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of the relevant form of demand or offer and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential; mere recovery of currency, without the required foundational proof, is insufficient to establish guilt
*P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police*, (2015) 10 SCC 152, quoted at pp. 21–22 · ¶ 23 · *K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana*, (2022) 4 SCC 574 · p. 16 · ¶ 20 · *Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)*, (2023) 4 SCC 731 · pp. 17–19 · ¶ 21Under *Neeraj Dutta*, the prosecution may prove demand and acceptance through direct or circumstantial evidence; Section 20’s mandatory presumption applies to an offence under Section 7 only after the foundational facts are proved, and does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i)–(ii)
pp. 17–19 · ¶ 21Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 2Section 7Section 13Section 20
04Reasoning
The Court considered the complainant’s testimony that he had put the money in the appellant’s pocket after asking him to pass the bills, without any demand by the appellant.
pp. 19–21 · ¶ 22–24It also found that the shadow witnesses did not establish that the money was tendered in response to a demand.
pp. 19–21 · ¶ 22–24The Court noted evidence that the bills were pending because they were old and required supporting documents, rather than because the appellant had demanded a bribe.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 17 · pp. 19–20 · ¶ 22In the absence of proof of demand, recovery of the treated notes did not establish the charged offences or permit the Section 20 presumption to supply the missing proof.
pp. 21–22 · ¶ 23–2505Holding
The High Court held that the prosecution had not proved the essential elements of the charged offences and that the trial court’s conviction was unsupported by the evidence.
pp. 22–23 · ¶ 24–26It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitted the appellant, and discharged him and his sureties from their bail-bond liabilities.
p. 23 · ¶ 26–28Original Court PDF
S.RAMANvsCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIO
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
