Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court

"The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail." Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on October 05, 2026, has categorically reiterated that the prosecution must prove the demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the mere recovery of tainted currency, even if accompanied by a positive chemical test, is not sufficient to establish guilt if the underlying demand remains unproved.

The case arose from an appeal filed by one Ajit Kumar, an assistant in the District Education Office, who had been convicted by both the trial court and the High Court of Jharkhand under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant had been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment based on a trap operation conducted by the Vigilance Bureau in 2010. The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the initial demand for a bribe, relying instead on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant and alleged subsequent recovery of money.

The primary question before the court was whether the recovery of tainted currency from the residence of a public servant, in the absence of independent, direct, or corroborative evidence of a prior demand, is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction under the PC Act. The court was further tasked with evaluating the impact of significant factual inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version of the trap operation on the reliability of the evidence.

The court emphasized that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential ingredients of the offence. Citing the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), the bench held that these must be proven as a fact in issue by the prosecution. The court noted that there is no room for presumption where the primary evidence of a voluntary demand is lacking.

Court highlights burden of proof in anti-corruption cases

The bench pointed out that the prosecution's case was plagued by "inconsistencies galore." The witnesses provided conflicting accounts regarding where the trap was laid, where the money was allegedly handed over, and the specific timing of the apprehension. While some witnesses claimed the appellant was arrested at his office, others suggested he was apprehended at his residence, or that he was taken to his residence only after the arrest to recover the money.

Significant gap in direct evidence

The judgment noted that none of the witnesses present during the proceedings testified to actually seeing the accused demand a bribe or the complainant handing over the money. This rendered the prosecution's case entirely dependent on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, whose version was further undermined by the lack of independent witnesses who could confirm the sequence of events.

"Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."

No shortcut to conviction via recovery

The court underscored that the chemical test, while useful, is a secondary piece of evidence. If the foundational fact—the demand—is not established, the recovery of currency becomes legally insignificant. The court observed that several witnesses admitted to signing documents under the direction of vigilance officials without actual knowledge of the contents, further weakening the evidentiary value of the seizure memos.

Applying settled legal principles

The bench found that the present case was squarely covered by the precedents set in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. and Aman Bhatia v. State. By applying these standards, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The bench remarked that the accused was essentially being convicted on circumstantial evidence that failed to form a complete chain of guilt.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Jharkhand as well as the trial court. The court declared that the charges framed against Ajit Kumar under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act could not be proved, effectively acquitting the appellant of all charges.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026