Facts
PW-1, a government school orderly, alleged that the appellant, an Assistant in the District Education Office, demanded Rs.5,000 as bribe for releasing his salary. A vigilance complaint was lodged and a trap was conducted on 20.05.2010. The tainted currency was subsequently recovered from the appellant’s residence and his hands tested positive in the chemical solution. The Special Judge convicted him under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court affirmed the conviction.
Issues Framed
The principal question was whether the prosecution had proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant so as to sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Demand and acceptance must be proved: The Court relied upon P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., holding that “proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non” for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. Failure to prove demand is fatal, and mere recovery of alleged bribe money is insufficient.
(b) Evidence in the present case: None of the witnesses saw the appellant demanding the bribe or PW-1 handing over the money. The prosecution case rested substantially on the uncorroborated testimony of PW-1. The witnesses also gave inconsistent accounts regarding where the transaction and recovery occurred.
(c) Recovery and chemical test: Although Rs.5,000 was recovered from the appellant’s residence and the hand-wash solution turned pink, these circumstances could not substitute proof of the foundational fact of demand and acceptance.
(d) Applicable precedent: The Court relied upon Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Aman Bhatia v. State, reiterating that demand and acceptance must be proved as facts in issue. In the absence of such proof, recovery of tainted currency cannot sustain conviction.
Held
The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The convictions under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act were set aside, the appellant was cleared of the charges, and the appeal was allowed.
Conclusion
Without proof of demand for illegal gratification, mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes is insufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
Relevant Para
19. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of A.P.1, this Court held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. In the absence thereof, the charge would fail. Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of alleged bribe money from the accused would not be sufficient for a conviction under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act. This Court held thus: 23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 1084
Decided on: 5 October 2026
Case Title: Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan J.; Atul S. Chandurkar J.