Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, through Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, allowed the appeal filed by the accused public servant challenging his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (Vigilance Court).
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, observing that recovery of tainted currency notes alone could not prove guilt unless there was unimpeachable evidence of demand and voluntary acceptance.
Reiterating the settled principle, the Court observed:
“Suspicion, however grave or strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Demand and acceptance are the sine qua non for establishing an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
Facts
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had registered a case against the accused, a government public servant, alleging that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of ₹5,000 from a private contractor as a reward for issuing a completion certificate for a public works contract executed under a government scheme.
According to the prosecution, the complainant had approached the accused regarding release of pending bills. The accused allegedly demanded ₹5,000 for processing the file. Acting on a complaint, a trap was arranged by the Vigilance Department. During the trap, the accused was caught with tainted currency notes in his drawer, and phenolphthalein tests turned positive.
Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The Special Judge (Vigilance) convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fine under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The accused challenged the judgment before the High Court, contending that the conviction was based on presumptions and procedural irregularities, without proof of a specific demand.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused.
- Whether mere recovery of tainted currency notes and positive phenolphthalein test results are sufficient to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could be invoked in the absence of clear proof of demand.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that the entire case was fabricated and that no demand or acceptance of bribe had taken place. He argued that the complainant was a disgruntled contractor whose payments were delayed for procedural reasons, and that the alleged transaction was falsely set up.
The defence emphasized that the complainant’s testimony was inconsistent, and that there was no independent corroboration of the alleged demand. The accused claimed that the tainted money was forcibly thrust upon him by the complainant and that its recovery from the office drawer was a planted recovery.
It was also argued that Section 7 and 13(1)(d) require proof of both demand and acceptance, and that mere recovery of money or phenolphthalein traces is insufficient to sustain conviction. The defence cited several Supreme Court precedents to show that presumption under Section 20 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution maintained that the trap proceedings were lawfully conducted and that the recovery of tainted notes and the positive phenolphthalein test clearly established acceptance. It contended that the complainant’s version was corroborated by the independent witness (shadow witness) and by Vigilance officers who conducted the operation.
The State argued that under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, once recovery is proved, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption that the money was accepted as illegal gratification. The prosecution further submitted that minor discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony do not affect the core of the case, as circumstantial evidence supported the prosecution’s version.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the statutory framework under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It emphasized that demand and acceptance are the core elements of the offence. Without establishing these two elements, mere possession or recovery of tainted money cannot lead to conviction.
The Court noted that under Section 20, the presumption of guilt can be drawn only when the prosecution first proves that there was a demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification. The presumption is rebuttable, but it cannot arise in the absence of foundational facts establishing demand.
Relying on the rule of strict proof, the Court held that since prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent versions of when and how the demand was made, and since there was no audio, video, or documentary corroboration, the case rested solely on suspicion, which cannot sustain conviction.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred extensively to a line of Supreme Court precedents reinforcing the principle that demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 — The Constitution Bench held that proof of demand is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d). Mere recovery does not suffice.
- C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, (2009) 3 SCC 779 — The Court ruled that unless demand and acceptance are proved beyond doubt, presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked.
- B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 — Held that recovery of money, even with phenolphthalein test confirmation, is not sufficient proof of guilt without evidence of demand.
- P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152 — Reiterated that demand is the gravamen of the offence, and mere possession of money is not enough.
- Ravinathan L. v. State of Kerala, 2024 (3) KLT 901 — Kerala High Court emphasized that public servants must be protected against speculative traps, reinforcing the need for concrete proof of demand.
- State of Kerala v. Jiyalal, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 387 — Clarified that inconsistent trap evidence weakens the presumption under Section 20.
The Court synthesized these precedents to conclude that the trial court had misapplied the presumption under Section 20 without establishing the foundational requirement of demand.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Ajithkumar meticulously examined the testimonies of the complainant, the shadow witness, and the trap team. He found material contradictions regarding the exact words of demand, the place of transaction, and the position of the accused when the money was recovered.
The Court observed that while the trap and recovery were proved, the demand was not contemporaneously corroborated. The complainant’s testimony lacked consistency, and the shadow witness did not confirm having heard the demand directly.
The Court emphasized that acceptance of money under coercion, mistake, or without voluntary intention does not constitute an offence. In this case, the defence explanation that the money was “thrust into the drawer” remained plausible and unrefuted.
Thus, the Court found the prosecution’s case unreliable, holding that the conviction rested on conjecture rather than proof. It noted that:
“Recovery of currency notes, without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, is insufficient to fasten criminal liability.”
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the accused of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Bench reaffirmed the settled legal position that demand and acceptance are indispensable ingredients for conviction. It cautioned vigilance authorities and trial courts to ensure strict adherence to evidentiary requirements, observing that failure to establish demand results in miscarriage of justice.
The Court concluded:
“In the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 cannot arise. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”
Implications
This judgment reiterates the foundational principles of corruption jurisprudence:
- Mere recovery is not conviction.
- Demand and acceptance must be distinctly proved.
- Courts must guard against conviction on suspicion or assumption.
It reinforces judicial discipline in corruption cases, ensuring a fair balance between public accountability and protection of honest officials. The ruling also serves as a reminder for investigating agencies to document demand through independent corroboration or technology-assisted evidence.
FAQs
1. What must be proved for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Both demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery or possession of money is not enough.
2. Can presumption under Section 20 of the Act arise automatically after recovery?
No. Presumption arises only after demand and acceptance are proved. It cannot substitute for foundational evidence.
3. Does this judgment protect public servants from traps?
Yes. The Court reiterated that officials cannot be convicted based on speculative traps without concrete proof of demand and voluntary acceptance.
