Mere Query About Bribe Is Not ‘Demand’ in Law: Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in ACB Trap Case Over ₹2,000 Mutation Bribe

“A stray question like ‘Have you brought the money?’ cannot be construed as a legal demand under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act”, In a strongly reasoned judgment reiterating foundational principles of criminal law, the Bombay High Court upheld the acquittal of a government servant accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹2,000 for processing a mutation entry. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of “demand” under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, noting that mere inquiry about whether money was brought does not constitute demand in law.

The case involved a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur, against the respondent—then a Head Quarter Assistant in the Land Records Office at Chimur—based on a complaint that he sought illegal gratification to effect a mutation in land records.

Justice M. M. Nerlikar, sitting in the Nagpur Bench, dismissed the State’s criminal appeal against acquittal and firmly held:

“A stray query, ipso facto and in absence of cogent and persuasive evidence, cannot amount to a demand under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act.”

“Demand is sine qua non – Mere possession of tainted currency is not enough to prove corruption”

The High Court underscored the well-settled principle that proof of demand is the sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

“It is settled law that if the prosecution fails to prove demand, mere acceptance of money is of no use,” the Court reiterated.

While the prosecution claimed the accused had demanded ₹2,000 for processing the mutation based on a gift deed executed by the complainant in favour of his son, the Trial Court had acquitted the accused after finding inconsistencies and material omissions in the testimonies of the complainant and panch witnesses.

The High Court not only affirmed the reasoning of the Trial Court but also relied on Supreme Court precedent, notably Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 8 SCC 136 and Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P. (2024) 10 SCC 489, to hold that:

“Even if a person is caught red-handed with tainted currency, in the absence of a proven demand, conviction cannot follow.”

“Initial demand not proved – Statement before police silent on prior meetings and demand of ₹2,000”

In a crucial finding, the High Court pointed out that while the complainant (PW-1) testified about repeated demands by the accused during prior visits to his office, none of those facts were recorded in his police statement, which was proved to be a material omission by the Investigating Officer (PW-5).

“This omission was significant and went to the root of the prosecution case. Once the initial demand itself is in doubt, the rest of the trap loses its legal foundation,” observed the Court.

PW-1's version that the accused had previously told him to bring ₹2,000 any time for mutation work, and had insisted that a sale deed (not gift deed) be executed, was found absent in the FIR and not corroborated by other witnesses.

Similarly, PW-2 (the panch) and PW-3 (complainant’s son) gave accounts riddled with contradictions. The Court noted that even the presence of the witnesses at the time of trap was questionable, with inconsistencies about who gave the signal, who retrieved the money, and the exact sequence of events.

“Presence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 at the place of incident itself is doubtful. These contradictions and omissions destroy the core of the prosecution story,” the Court ruled.

“Sanction without application of mind vitiates trial” – High Court finds approval to prosecute was based on ACB’s pre-drafted proforma

The Court also found that the sanction for prosecution (Exh. 56) was issued mechanically, without proper application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority (PW-4). It was revealed in cross-examination that the ACB had sent a pre-drafted sanction order, and the authority had not verified the service book or independently assessed the materials.

“If such cryptic sanctions are allowed to stand, it would frustrate the object of requiring prior sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act,” the Court noted.

Citing State of Maharashtra v. Baliram, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1019 and Ramchandra v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2286, the Court reiterated that:

“Sanction must reflect due consideration of relevant facts. A sanction based on mere reproduction of ACB’s findings is no sanction in the eyes of law.”

“Suppression of accused’s post-trap explanation is fatal to prosecution” – Adverse inference drawn under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act

A particularly damning procedural lapse, according to the Court, was the failure to produce the accused’s statement recorded immediately after the trap. Though PW-5 (Investigating Officer) admitted to having recorded the statement, it was never placed in the charge sheet or exhibited during trial.

“This unexplained suppression goes to the root of the matter. The Court is entitled to presume that had the explanation been produced, it would not have supported the prosecution,” held Justice Nerlikar, invoking Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Reliance was placed on Shashidhar Shivram Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 968 and Bismillakha Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1341, where similar suppression of the accused’s contemporaneous explanation had led to acquittals.

“Appeal against acquittal—limited interference warranted only if trial court’s findings are perverse”

Refusing to disturb the Trial Court’s acquittal, the High Court stressed that interference with acquittal must be exercised with caution. Citing P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291 and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Court reminded:

“There is a double presumption of innocence when an accused is acquitted. If two views are possible, the appellate court must not disturb the finding unless it is perverse or leads to miscarriage of justice.”

Here, the Court found that:

“The Trial Court’s view was not only possible but plausible and based on sound legal reasoning. The prosecution failed to establish the foundational elements of demand, valid sanction, and procedural fairness.”

 “Demand not proved – Sanction invalid – Explanation suppressed – Acquittal justified”

Summarising its findings, the High Court concluded:

1. Demand was not proved, and the query “Have you brought the money?” cannot constitute legal demand.
2. Sanction to prosecute was granted mechanically, without due application of mind.
3. Post-trap statement of accused was suppressed, justifying an adverse inference against the prosecution.
4. Contradictions and omissions in key witness testimonies rendered the prosecution story unreliable.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal.

“The Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent. This Court finds no reason to interfere,” concluded Justice M. M. Nerlikar.

Date of Decision: 24 November 2025