Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court

"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." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 17, 2026, held that once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of illegal gratification, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) by a preponderance of probabilities.

A bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the trial court erred in acquitting a public servant by accepting a 'display charge' defense that lacked evidentiary backing and failed to account for the established recovery of tainted currency.

The appellant, State of Kerala, challenged an acquittal order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, in a 2008 corruption case. The respondent, then an Assistant Manager at the Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation (KCSC), was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 4,000 from a vegetable supplier for issuing cheques. The trial court had acquitted the accused, holding that the money was received as 'display charges' permitted by the KCSC.

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court failed to correctly appreciate the evidence regarding the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe. The court was also called upon to determine whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act by justifying the receipt of the money as a legitimate collection of 'display charges'.

Re-evaluating The Standard Of Proof

The Court emphasized that once the prosecution proves the 'demand' and 'acceptance' of gratification, Section 20 of the PC Act mandates that the court must raise a presumption that such gratification was a motive or reward. The Bench noted that while this presumption is rebuttable, the accused must offer a plausible explanation based on the preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused, supported by the phenolphthalein test, established the act of acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Rejects Speculative Defence

The Bench scrutinized the defense's reliance on Ext. D6, which permitted the collection of display charges for branded consumer goods. The Court observed that vegetable suppliers did not fall under this category. Crucially, the Court held that the trial court failed to note that the accused produced no documentation for the assessment of Rs. 4,000 as display charges, nor was there any standard procedure for an officer to accept such payments directly into their personal pocket.

"The probability of handing over the money towards bribe as well display charge is equally probable." (Observation of Trial Court, held perverse by High Court)

Applicability Of Neeraj Dutta Precedent

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, the High Court reiterated that proof of demand is a sine qua non for offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d). The Bench clarified that while mere receipt of money without proof of demand is insufficient, the totality of the circumstances—including the prior demand mentioned in the complaint—provided sufficient evidence to establish culpability. The Court found the trial court's logic to be "perverse" for ignoring the lack of any official receipt or authorization for the collected amount.

Refining The Evidentiary Standards

The Court noted that even if the complainant's evidence contained minor omissions, the recovery of the notes and the corroborative evidence from the trap laying officer established the offense. The Bench held that the trial court's view was not a "possible view" but rather a failure to apply the legal mandates of the PC Act. The Court underscored that courts must not be swayed by unsubstantiated defenses that lack any official record of transaction.

Setting aside the acquittal, the High Court convicted the respondent for offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The accused was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment for the offense under Section 7 and two years for the offense under Section 13(1)(d), to run concurrently, alongside substantial fines. The Registry was directed to ensure the execution of the sentence after the expiry of the one-month period granted for the suspension of the sentence.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2026