Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient For Conviction Under Prevention Of Corruption 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 September 22, 2026, held that the mere recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of independent proof of prior demand, is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli observed that the prosecution must establish the fact of demand and subsequent acceptance as a sine qua non to secure a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

Prosecution Fails To Establish Prior Demand

The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a Patwari accused of demanding a bribe for mutation of property. While the trial court and the High Court had affirmed the conviction based on the recovery of phenolphthalein-powdered currency notes from the appellant's pocket, the Supreme Court noted critical evidentiary lapses. The court emphasized that the prosecution's own witnesses failed to substantiate that the money was either demanded by the accused or voluntarily handed over by the complainant in their presence.

Court Reaffirms Settled Jurisprudence

The bench relied heavily on the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta vs. State, which mandated that an offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant must be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. The court reiterated that in the absence of primary evidence, while circumstantial evidence may allow for an inferential deduction of guilt, the core requirement of proving demand remains unchanged. Mere recovery of money, without evidence of the circumstances of the transaction, cannot shift the burden onto the accused.

"The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act."

Evidence Of Shadow Witness Found Unreliable

The Court meticulously scrutinized the testimony of the shadow witness, noting that he admitted to being outside the office during the alleged transaction. This contradiction regarding the presence of the witness at the time of the handover effectively dismantled the prosecution's claim. The court held that where the recovery is not observed by independent witnesses and the demand is not established, the procedural integrity of the trap is vitiated, rendering the recovery legally irrelevant for proving criminal misconduct.

"Mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act."

Absence Of Independent Proof Fatal To Case

The court concluded that since neither the demand nor the acceptance was witnessed by members of the raiding party, the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The bench observed that the conviction was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence, thereby violating the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026