Mere Possession of Tainted Currency Not Enough to Convict Without Proof of Demand or Knowledge: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Two in Bribery Trap Case

“Earlier demands are integral part of subsequent demand and acceptance... in absence of credible evidence proving such demand, conviction cannot be sustained.” - In a powerful reaffirmation of settled anti-corruption jurisprudence, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the convictions of two accused in a bribery trap case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy acquitted M. Adinarayana, a Mandal Surveyor, and K. Subramanyam, a petition writer, by holding that mere possession of tainted currency is not enough to secure conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 unless the foundational requirement of prior demand is conclusively established.

The judgment underscores the principle that when a prosecution case is built on the solitary testimony of a complainant, it must be unimpeachably reliable and consistent, especially in trap cases involving public servants.

“When prior demand itself is in serious doubt, acceptance cannot stand alone”: Court dismantles trial court’s reasoning
The central legal point addressed by the Court was the requirement of proving prior demand of illegal gratification, especially when the prosecution’s case rests on the sole testimony of the complainant.

The Court observed: “Earlier demands are integral part of subsequent demand and acceptance… In the absence of the same, the other part of the prosecution story did not stand by itself and the same is also not acceptable.”

Pointing out inconsistencies in the testimony of P.W.1 (the complainant) — including contradictions in the dates he allegedly met the accused officer to make bribe demands — the Court held:

“Admittedly, 15th January is Sankranti festival and a holiday… the evidence of P.W.1 is silent on where he met AO.1 on that day… this creates serious ambiguity.”

Furthermore, on the date 25.01.2001, P.W.1 contradicted his earlier statements under Section 164 CrPC, saying he met the officer on a different day — 20.01.2001 — undermining his own credibility.

“Evidence of sole witness must be wholly reliable to sustain conviction”: Court finds P.W.1 untrustworthy
The High Court invoked the classic test laid down in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras: “When a case rests on the solitary testimony of a witness… it must be consistent, cogent, and trustworthy… In such a case, his evidence must be unimpeachable and above board.”

It then sharply criticized the trial court for convicting the accused based solely on unsubstantiated and inconsistent statements of P.W.1, especially when:

No recovery of tainted money was made from AO.1, the public servant;

P.W.1 had five prior criminal cases against him, including a murder case (in which he was acquitted);

P.W.1 admitted that AO.1 had previously seized his illegal kerosene, providing motive for revenge.

The Court found: “P.W.1 cannot be termed as a wholly reliable witness… There is no accompanying witness… there is absolutely no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish the alleged demands.”

“No evidence A.2 knew the money was bribe”: Court finds no basis for abetment charge
As for A.2, the petition writer, the Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove he had any knowledge or intent to abet the offence, even though he accepted the tainted money.

“There is no evidence to show that A.2 accepted the tainted money having knowledge that it is a bribe… Mere recovery of tainted currency is not enough to sustain conviction.”

The accused had given a written explanation (Ex.D6) that the complainant handed him money with a request to hold it temporarily, and this explanation was not disproven by the prosecution.

Finding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that no case for abetment under Section 12 had been made out, the High Court held:

“The trial Court has not considered the evidence on record in right perspective and erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants.”

Accordingly, both appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted and set at liberty. Any fine amounts paid were ordered to be refunded.

Date of Decision: 1 May 2025