No Presumption Under Section 20 PC Act Without Proof Of Demand And Acceptance: Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against Sub-Inspector

"For constituting an offence under Section 7(a) of the Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non." Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the statutory presumption of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invoked in the absence of concrete proof establishing the demand and acceptance of a bribe.

A single-judge bench of Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed that "proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non," while quashing criminal proceedings initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against a Sub-Inspector of Police.

The petitioner, working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Kamareddy Police Station, was arrayed as Accused No. 3 in a corruption case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nizamabad. The primary allegations of a ₹5 lakh bribe demand were directed against the Inspector of Police and a private person, but the petitioner’s name surfaced in a subsequent complaint alleging a demand of ₹20,000 for granting station bail in a gambling case. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the allegations were completely unsupported by material evidence and no official favor was pending before him.

The primary question before the court was whether criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be sustained against a public servant based on a solitary, uncorroborated statement of demand, without any trap or recovery. The court was also called upon to determine if a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code requires cogent material showing an agreement or meeting of minds among the accused.

Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non

Analyzing the essential ingredients of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court emphasized that mere allegations are insufficient to sustain a prosecution. The bench categorically stated that under Section 7(a) of the Act, establishing the demand for a bribe is absolutely foundational. In the absence of such proof, the court noted, the prosecution's case must fail at the threshold.

No Presumption Without Proof Of Acceptance

The court further elaborated on the application of the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. It clarified that this presumption does not automatically trigger upon the mere filing of a complaint against a public servant. The bench ruled that without establishing the foundational facts of demand and acceptance, the legal presumption of guilt cannot be drawn.

"In the absence of proof of both demand and acceptance, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked."

Uncorroborated Statement Insufficient

Turning to the specific facts of the case, the court highlighted that the petitioner was entirely absent from the initial complaints filed on November 6 and 8, 2020. His name was introduced only in a later complaint, and no trap was laid by the ACB, nor was any bribe amount recovered from his possession. The court found that the case against the petitioner was legally baseless.

"The allegation of demand of Rs.20,000/- rests solely upon a solitary and uncorroborated statement made in the subsequent complaint dated 13.11.2020. There is no independent material or supporting evidence to substantiate the said allegation."

Absence Of Pending Official Favour

A crucial factor in the court's decision was the lack of any official duty pending with the petitioner regarding the complainant. The court observed that the primary accused, the Inspector of Police, had already entrusted the investigation of the underlying gambling case to a different Sub-Inspector. Therefore, the petitioner had no authority or pending file to grant the alleged station bail.

"In the absence of any pending official act within the domain or authority of the petitioneraccused No.3, the essential ingredients required to attract Section 7(a) read with clause (c) of the Act are conspicuously absent."

No Evidence Of Criminal Conspiracy

Addressing the charges framed under Section 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC, the court reiterated that a charge of conspiracy requires cogent material demonstrating a clear agreement between the accused. The bench found absolutely no record suggesting the petitioner conspired with the other accused to demand the bribe. The prosecution completely failed to establish any nexus.

"A careful scrutiny of the record does not disclose any material indicating that the petitioneraccused No.3 had entered into any agreement with the other accused to demand or accept illegal gratification."

Continuation Amounts To Abuse Of Process Finally, the court took judicial notice of the fact that proceedings against the main accused, the Inspector of Police, had already been quashed by the High Court in 2022. While acknowledging that quashing against one accused does not automatically absolve others, the bench noted that the primary substratum of the allegations had been destroyed, making further prosecution of the petitioner untenable.

"Continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would therefore amount to an abuse of process of law."

Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.05/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020. The ruling reinforces the principle that public servants cannot be subjected to the rigors of a corruption trial based on solitary, uncorroborated subsequent complaints without foundational evidence of demand and acceptance.

Date of Decision: 26 March 2026