Can conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act be sustained without proof of demand of illegal gratification?

Reaffirmation of Supreme Court precedents: acquittal where demand, acceptance and recovery are not proved; binding authority for subordinate courts in corruption trials

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that proof of demand, acceptance and recovery are indispensable for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
• Emphasizes that the accused must have official authority to perform the act before any demand can be validly made.
• Highlights that inconsistencies in the locus of recovery (table vs pocket) preclude a safe conviction.
• Underscores that grave suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt in corruption prosecutions.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Identified three essential ingredients for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d): demand of gratification, acceptance by the public servant and its recovery.
2. Relied on Supreme Court precedents (Satyanarayan Murthy; B. Jayaraj; C.M. Girish Babu; Dashrath Singh Chauhan; N. Vijayakumar) to hold that mere recovery absent proof of demand is insufficient.
3. Examined the trap evidence and witness testimony; noted contradictions on where the money was found and that the accused had no competence to issue the document sought.
4. Applied the principle that if two plausible inferences exist, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
5. Concluded that demand was not established and recovery evidence was inconsistent; conviction could not stand.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant’s LR)

• Trial court failed to prove demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
• Verdict contradicted the disbelieved transcript of the conversation (Ex. P-11).
• Accused had no authority to issue the certified copy; complainant knew this.
• Complainant habitually made false allegations against officials.
• Contradictions in evidence on whether money was on the table or in a pocket.
• Benefit of doubt should lead to acquittal.

Respondent (State)

• Accused was instrumental in sending records for the certified copy and thus could demand gratification.
• Money was recovered from the accused’s table, and phenolphthalein test (pink solution) proved acceptance.
• Written complaint and procedural trap establishment corroborate the demand.

Factual Background

A public servant was accused of demanding ₹500 to procure a certified copy of a government pond case order. The complainant reported the demand to the Lokayukta police, who conducted a trap using phenolphthalein-coated notes and a recording device. During the trap, the notes were handed over and later recovered from the accused with a pink reaction on his hands. The trial court convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On appeal, the High Court found no proof of demand or consistent recovery evidence and acquitted the accused.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 7 PC Act: Requires both demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification; mere recovery alone cannot sustain conviction.
• Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act: Public servant forbears or performs official act for gratification; proof of demand and acceptance is indispensable.
• Section 20 PC Act: Presumption of bribe applies only after demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are established.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed

Citations

• Satyanarayan Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152
• B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55
• C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779
• Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. CBI, (2019) 17 SCC 509
• N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 SCC 687