Proof Of Demand For Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act; Mere Recovery Of Money Not Sufficient: Supreme Court

"It is well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and offence under of permeating mandate for an Sections 7 and 13 of the Act." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 27, 2026, held that the proof of demand for illegal gratification is an "indispensable essentiality" for establishing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances of demand, cannot lead to a conviction. The Court emphasized that in the absence of substantive evidence regarding demand and acceptance, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be invoked.

The matter originated from an incident in 1995 where officials of the Central Excise department, including a Superintendent and several Inspectors, allegedly seized records from a factory without providing an acknowledgment. It was alleged that the Superintendent, R.K. Srivastava, demanded Rs. 80,000 for the return of the documents. Following a CBI trap, money was recovered from Srivastava’s residence, leading to the conviction of the officials by a Special Judge in 2014. However, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the respondents in 2019, prompting the State of Uttar Pradesh to approach the Apex Court.

The primary question before the Court was whether the respondents could be convicted under Section 120-B of the IPC and the PC Act based on their presence during the raid and the subsequent recovery of money. The Court was also called upon to determine if a charge of criminal conspiracy could be sustained when the alleged chief conspirator was not himself charged with conspiracy, and whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for withholding material evidence.

Proof Of Demand Is An Absolute Prerequisite For Conviction

The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that the demand for a bribe is the sine qua non for convicting a public servant under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. The bench noted that the High Court was justified in observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the foundational fact of demand beyond reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted that the essential ingredients of "demand" and "acceptance" were "absolutely lacking" as far as the accused inspectors were concerned.

The bench relied on several precedents, including B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. and P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, to underscore that mere possession and recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not establish an offence. The Court observed that "mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable."

Failure To Establish Meeting Of Minds In Criminal Conspiracy

Regarding the charge under Section 120-B of the IPC, the Court found substance in the High Court’s reasoning that the prosecution failed to show a "meeting of minds." The bench noted that while the Inspectors were charged with conspiracy, the alleged "main accused and chief conspirator," R.K. Srivastava, was not even charged under Section 120-B. This created a legal disconnect that proved fatal to the prosecution’s theory of a joint criminal enterprise.

Conspiracy Cannot Be Inferred Merely From Presence Or Association

The Court emphasized that a conspiracy cannot be inferred merely on the basis of suspicion or the association of the parties. Citing State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the bench held that "the meeting of the minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act... is a sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy." In the present case, the prosecution failed to produce any substantive evidence indicating a prior agreement or concert between the respondents and the principal accused.

Adverse Inference Against Prosecution For Withholding Best Evidence

A critical point of the judgment was the prosecution’s failure to produce a tape recorder that allegedly contained the conversation of the bribe demand. The Court noted that this "vital evidence" was never adduced, despite the complainant testifying to its existence. Invoking Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, the Court held that a fit case existed to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding evidence that would have been unfavourable to their case.

The failure to produce the alleged tape-recorded conversation assumed great significance because it could have "conclusively established the persons present at the time of alleged demand and the exact nature of the conversation." The Court remarked that the conviction by the Trial Court was substantially based on "presumptions and conjectures" rather than legally admissible evidence.

Limited Scope Of Interference In Appeals Against Acquittal

The Supreme Court further discussed the principles governing interference with orders of acquittal as laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. It reminded that an appellate court should not disturb a finding of acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record. The bench noted that the High Court had meticulously re-appreciated the evidence and arrived at a plausible view that warranted no interference.

The bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance, and criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding no perversity in the High Court’s judgment, the Apex Court upheld the acquittal of the respondents.

The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, affirming the acquittal of the respondents. The ruling reinforces the high burden of proof required in corruption cases, emphasizing that neither recovery of money nor mere association with the primary accused can substitute the mandatory legal requirement of proving a specific demand for illegal gratification.

Date of Decision: May 27, 2026