Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of a Taluk Supply Officer previously found guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification—both essential ingredients to establish guilt under the Act. Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated that “proof of demand is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2),” and acquitted the accused of all charges.
Facts
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) had alleged that while serving as a Taluk Supply Officer in Kottayam, the accused demanded ₹500 as illegal gratification from a ration shop dealer for signing a register related to the shop’s operations. The trap was set on July 20, 2009, and the Vigilance team recovered the tainted currency from the accused. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the Special Judge convicted the officer, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of two and three years respectively under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, along with fines.
The accused appealed the conviction, contending that the key prosecution witness turned hostile and that there was no conclusive proof of any demand or voluntary acceptance of a bribe.
Issues
- Whether the trial court rightly found that the accused committed offences under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988.
- Whether the finding of guilt under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) was sustainable.
- Whether the verdict required interference based on evidentiary inconsistencies.
- What order should be passed in light of the above findings.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The defence argued that the entire prosecution case hinged on the testimony of PW1—the complainant—who had turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution regarding any demand for a bribe. The defence stressed that the complainant’s evidence was neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, and hence could not form the basis for conviction without corroboration.
Citing Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614], Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [2022 SCC 157], and Aman Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013], counsel emphasized that courts must rely on the quality, not the quantity, of evidence and that corroboration is mandatory when the main witness’s credibility is in doubt.
The defence further argued that FIRs are not substantive evidence and cannot be used to corroborate other witnesses. Reliance was placed on Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra [2009 (4) KLT Suppl. 1036 (SC)] and Hasib v. State of Bihar [AIR 1972 SC 283]. The defence submitted that demand and acceptance are the “vital essentials” to prove offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, as held in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 4 SCC 731], Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police [AIR 2015 SC 3549], and Girish Babu v. CBI [2009 (3) SCC 779]. Since no credible proof of demand existed, conviction could not be sustained.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution countered that though PW1 turned hostile, his testimony, along with that of PW2 and PW17, corroborated the circumstances of receipt of ₹500 by the accused. The prosecution argued that even circumstantial evidence could prove demand and acceptance, citing Neeraj Dutta and M.Sambasiva Rao v. State of A.P. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1463]. It was contended that recovery of tainted notes, positive phenolphthalein test results, and the accused’s inconsistent conduct together established the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the legal principle laid down by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [AIR 2023 SC 330], holding that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must both be proved as facts in issue. The Court observed that while circumstantial evidence can establish such facts, the foundational evidence must first exist to permit an inference. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only after such foundational facts are proved.
Justice Badharudeen also referred to Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 983], where the Kerala High Court, applying Neeraj Dutta, had reaffirmed that “proof of demand is sine qua non to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2),” and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient in the absence of credible proof of demand.
Precedent Analysis
- Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614] — Classified witnesses into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither category; held corroboration necessary for the latter.
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [AIR 2023 SC 330] — Constitution Bench clarified that demand and acceptance are both mandatory ingredients; circumstantial evidence permissible only when foundational facts exist.
- Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police [AIR 2015 SC 3549] — Reaffirmed that recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction.
- Girish Babu v. CBI [2009 (3) SCC 779] — Emphasized necessity of proving both demand and acceptance.
- Aman Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013] — Reiterated principles from Neeraj Dutta; held that hostility of complainant cannot automatically exonerate but demand must still be independently proved.
- Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 983] — Applied Neeraj Dutta to quash conviction where demand not proved.
These precedents reinforced that without credible evidence of demand, conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) cannot stand.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that PW1’s testimony was inconsistent and did not support the prosecution case regarding the alleged demand on July 13 or July 20, 2009. He categorically denied any demand during cross-examination, stating, “പ്രതി പണം ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടിട്ടില്ല” (the accused did not demand money). While the phenolphthalein test and recovery of ₹500 were proved, these alone could not establish guilt without proof of demand.
Justice Badharudeen emphasized that “mere recovery of money or positive test results without credible evidence of demand cannot form the basis of conviction under the PC Act.” Since the only witness to the alleged demand turned hostile and no other corroboration existed, the conviction could not be sustained.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, and acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The Court directed that the accused be released forthwith and his bail bond cancelled.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that proof of demand and acceptance is indispensable in corruption cases, and recovery alone is inadequate to establish guilt. It underscores judicial consistency with Neeraj Dutta and related precedents, strengthening safeguards against wrongful convictions in trap cases based solely on procedural compliance or presumptions without direct proof of demand.
FAQs
1. Can an accused be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act based solely on recovery of tainted money?
No. The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that proof of demand and acceptance are mandatory. Mere recovery or positive phenolphthalein tests are insufficient.
2. What happens if the complainant turns hostile in a corruption trial?
Even if the complainant turns hostile, the prosecution can rely on circumstantial or corroborative evidence. However, if no credible proof of demand emerges, acquittal must follow.
3. What is the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Section 20 allows courts to presume that gratification was accepted as a reward or motive once demand and acceptance are proved. However, the presumption arises only after foundational facts are established.