PC Act | Mere Recovery of Money Is Not Enough—Demand and Acceptance Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court

In a significant judgment reaffirming the fundamental requirement of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of a Delhi Police officer who was previously found guilty of accepting ₹10,000 as illegal gratification in exchange for not arresting an accused in a dowry death case.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2006, held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, due to material contradictions, hostile witnesses, and the absence of credible proof of demand and acceptance.

"Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification... is a sine qua non to establish guilt" — Court Relies on Neeraj Dutta and B. Jayaraj

Relying extensively on the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 4 SCC 731] and the earlier decision in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 55], the High Court reiterated that:

“Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7.”

Justice Ohri emphasized that “gratification” must be voluntarily demanded or accepted and that the prosecution must prove it as a fact in issue either by direct or circumstantial evidence, which it failed to do in the present case.

Dowry Death Case Leads to Bribery Allegation Against Investigating Officer

The appellant, ASI Ram Chander, was the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 92/1998 under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, concerning the suicide of one Babita, the sister-in-law of complainant Rakesh Kumar. The prosecution alleged that ASI Ram Chander demanded ₹10,000 to avoid arresting Jai Bhagwan, the complainant’s younger brother-in-law.

According to the complaint lodged on 07.10.1998, a trap was laid at the officer's residence in Najafgarh, and a raid was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Branch. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to:

• 1.5 years RI with ₹4,000 fine under Section 7, and

• 3 years RI with ₹6,000 fine under Section 13(2) of the PC Act,
  with sentences to run concurrently.

Key Witnesses Turn Hostile, Court Finds “Incompatible” Versions and Contradictions

However, the High Court’s detailed analysis of the evidence exposed serious fissures in the prosecution case:

• PW-7 (Complainant Rakesh Kumar) categorically denied interacting directly with the appellant. He stated that his friend Pankaj handled the entire matter, and he was not even present at the spot during the alleged trap. He signed some blank papers at the ACB office but never saw any money being given to the accused.

• PW-8 (Panch witness Davinder Kumar) admitted ignorance of key facts, contradicted himself, and stated that the alleged bribe money was placed under a mat, but could not confirm that the accused received it. He also claimed that the accused was not present when the money was recovered.

• PW-11 (Pankaj Malik), friend of the complainant, gave a completely different version, stating that upon arrival at the accused’s house, they were turned away by a woman and a commotion ensued. He denied seeing any money being exchanged or even knowing if the accused was present.

“The versions put forth by the concerned witnesses are also inconsistent on several other aspects, including... the number of police officials in the raiding party, the time of raid, and who all were present,” the Court noted.

Court Finds No Proof of Demand or Acceptance — Essential Ingredient Missing

Justice Ohri held that none of the key witnesses supported the charge of demand, and even if recovery of money was assumed, acceptance without proven demand is insufficient for conviction under the PC Act.

“The evidence on the aspect of demand and acceptance in the present case is incompatible with a voluntary demand and receipt of gratification,” the Court observed.

The Court also noted the possibility of false implication, as the appellant had earlier arrested the complainant’s relatives in the dowry death case. The defence also produced two witnesses, one of whom confirmed that the accused was not present at the time of the alleged trap.

Acquittal Ordered — Conviction Set Aside, Bail Bond Cancelled

Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal, and passed the following operative directions:

“Accordingly, the present appeal succeeds and the appellant’s conviction under the aforesaid Sections is set aside.”

“The appellant’s bail bond is cancelled and his surety is discharged.”

A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Trial Court and the concerned Jail Superintendent.

Courts Must Guard Against Convictions Without Proof of Demand

This decision is yet another in a line of recent rulings where High Courts and the Supreme Court have thrown out convictions under the PC Act due to lack of proof of demand and acceptance, reaffirming that mere recovery of money is not sufficient in corruption cases.

Justice Ohri’s judgment underscores the high evidentiary standard required in bribery cases, even in the face of public outrage over corruption.

Date of Decision: 18 December 2025