Prevention of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery of Money from Floor Without Proof of Demand Insufficient for Conviction: Rajasthan High Court

“Demand of bribe money is sine qua non... Mere insinuation or casual conversation, including any scratchy, incomplete, vague or evasive dialogue, cannot constitute a demand for the purposes of the Act of 1988.”— In a seminal ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, comprising Justice Anand Sharma, has set aside the conviction of three Railway Protection Force (RPF) officials, holding that the mere recovery of currency notes from the floor, absent clear proof of a specific demand and voluntary acceptance, cannot sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

A Trap Gone Wrong

The case arose from a complaint filed by one Chiranjilal, alleging that Kailash Chand Saini (Incharge, RPF Police Station Reengus) and his subordinates, Jagveer Singh and Sanwar Mal Meena, demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000. The alleged bribe was to delete the complainant’s name from a case registered under the Railways Act and to ensure his brother’s release.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) laid a trap on 26.07.2007. The prosecution alleged that Appellant No. 3 (Sanwar Mal Meena) was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 3,000. However, the defence argued that the complainant forcibly tried to thrust the money into the constable's pocket. When the constable resisted and flicked his hand, the notes scattered on the floor, from where they were eventually recovered by the ACB team.

“Mere recovery of money divorced from voluntary acceptance is insufficient to sustain conviction.”

Demand is Sine Qua Non

Justice Sharma conducted a meticulous deep-dive into the evidence, dismantling the prosecution's narrative on three critical fronts: Demand, Acceptance, and Pendency of Work.

The Court observed that the initial demand alleged on 13.07.2007 was not corroborated by any voice recording. Furthermore, the transcription of the verification call on 26.07.2007 was found to be vague. The Court noted that the complainant himself was voluntarily offering money, while the accused’s responses were evasive and did not constitute an explicit demand.

Citing the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the High Court reiterated that proof of demand is a foundational fact. Without it, the entire prosecution case collapses.

The ‘Sandy’ Hand Wash & Recovery from Floor

A pivotal point in the judgment was the forensic evidence. The phenolphthalein test of the accused’s hands turned the solution "sandy" rather than the required "pink." This scientifically corroborated the defence's stance that the accused never handled the money voluntarily.

The Court held that since the money was recovered from the floor and not from the conscious possession of the accused, it could not be termed as "acceptance." The judgment emphasized that the complainant’s attempt to force the money upon the accused does not amount to receipt of a bribe.

“In the absence of proof of demand and lawful recovery, presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked.”

No Work Pending: The Abuse of Position Argument Fails

The Court also scrutinized the charge of abuse of official position. Evidence revealed that the investigation against the complainant had been conducted by another officer, Shri I.D. Khan, and the charge sheet had already been forwarded to higher authorities for approval two days prior to the trap.

Consequently, on the date of the alleged trap, no work was pending with the appellants, and they were not in a position to extend any favour. This negated the motive required for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

Presumption Under Section 20 Not Automatic

The Trial Court had convicted the accused without recording specific findings on the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The High Court corrected this legal error, clarifying that the presumption of guilt is not automatic. It arises only after the prosecution successfully proves the foundational facts of demand and acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the foundational facts were shaky, the presumption could not be drawn.

Finding the Trial Court’s judgment perverse and contrary to settled law, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction dated 29.05.2023, and acquitted all three appellants of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 120-B IPC.

Date of Decision: 19/12/2025