Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, allowed the criminal appeal filed by a former village official who had been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹100.
Setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational ingredient of demand of illegal gratification, which is a sine qua non for conviction under both Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act.
In doing so, the Court reiterated:
“Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to establish the guilt of a public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
Facts
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, registered a case against a village official alleging that while working at the Kakkoor Village Office, he demanded ₹100 as a bribe from a complainant on 22 April 2005, for processing a land survey application. It was alleged that the accused accepted the bribe at 3:00 p.m. on 25 April 2005, following a pre-arranged trap conducted by the Vigilance department.
During investigation, the Vigilance officials conducted a phenolphthalein test, which indicated traces of the powder on the accused’s hands and shirt pocket. The tainted currency note (marked as MO1) was recovered from his possession.
Based on this evidence, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment on each count along with a fine of ₹1,000 on each count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The accused appealed the conviction before the High Court, challenging both the finding of guilt and the reliance on circumstantial evidence when the complainant had turned hostile.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the conviction based solely on recovery of tainted currency notes was sustainable in law.
- Whether the trial court erred in inferring demand from surrounding circumstances without direct evidence.
- Whether the judgment of conviction warranted interference by the appellate court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The defence contended that the entire prosecution case rested solely on the testimony of the complainant (PW1), who had turned hostile and failed to support the allegation of demand or acceptance of a bribe. No other prosecution witness had corroborated the alleged demand.
It was argued that the recovery of ₹100 from the accused’s pocket could not, by itself, establish the offence without proof of demand. The petitioner emphasized that the trial court had drawn an inference of guilt purely on circumstantial evidence, which was impermissible under the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The counsel pointed out that none of the prosecution witnesses, including the decoy, trap witnesses, or vigilance officials, had witnessed or heard any conversation indicating a demand for bribe. It was further argued that the accused had consistently maintained that the complainant forcibly placed the currency note into his pocket, and this explanation had not been disproved by the prosecution.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, contended that though the complainant did not support the case, the demand could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, particularly the recovery of tainted money and the phenolphthalein test results.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s five-judge bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (AIR 2023 SC 330), where it was held that even if the complainant turns hostile or dies, demand and acceptance may be proved by circumstantial evidence. The prosecution argued that since the trap was successfully executed, the presence of phenolphthalein traces on the accused’s hands, and recovery of the marked currency note from his pocket, sufficiently established his guilt.
Analysis of the Law
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the ingredients of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which deal with the acceptance of gratification by public servants and criminal misconduct respectively.
Referring to Section 7, the Court noted that it criminalizes acceptance of gratification “other than legal remuneration” as a motive or reward for performing or refraining from an official act. Similarly, Section 13(1)(d) defines criminal misconduct as obtaining a pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing one’s position.
Justice Badharudeen emphasized that mere recovery of currency notes or a positive phenolphthalein test cannot independently sustain a conviction unless the demand of bribe is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance—the twin ingredients essential for conviction.
Precedent Analysis
The Court heavily relied upon the five-judge bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (AIR 2023 SC 330), which summarized the principles relating to proof of demand and acceptance under the PC Act. Quoting paragraph 68, the Court reiterated that:
“Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non to establish guilt. Mere possession or recovery of currency notes, without proof of demand, will not establish an offence.”
The Court also referred to its own recent decision in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 983], which reaffirmed the legal position post-Neeraj Dutta. It was observed therein that even if the complainant turns hostile, inference of guilt may be drawn only if foundational facts of demand are proved by other evidence.
The Court further cited the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police (2015) 10 SCC 152, and M. Narasinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691, all of which consistently held that demand of illegal gratification is indispensable for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Badharudeen observed that none of the prosecution witnesses had supported the core allegation of demand. The complainant (PW1) had turned hostile and disowned his earlier statement. Even during cross-examination, no material was elicited to prove that the accused had demanded any bribe.
While the prosecution urged the Court to infer demand from circumstantial evidence, the High Court noted that the trap witnesses and vigilance officials only proved recovery of money, not the demand or voluntary acceptance of gratification.
The Court emphasized that, in the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked. It reiterated that “demand and acceptance” must coexist, and acceptance without demand is insufficient to sustain conviction.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Special Judge had misdirected himself in law by convicting the appellant merely on the basis of recovery and the trap proceedings without proving the foundational fact of demand.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court directed that the accused be set at liberty forthwith, and his bail bond be cancelled. It further directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Special Court for compliance.
“The twin ingredients of demand and acceptance not having been established, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court cannot stand.”
Implications
This judgment reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It underscores that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient, and that the prosecution must establish an unequivocal demand for bribe.
The decision also clarifies the limited scope of circumstantial inference post-Neeraj Dutta, ensuring that courts do not convict public servants based on conjecture or incomplete proof. It safeguards against wrongful convictions in cases where procedural irregularities or witness hostility compromise the prosecution’s case.
FAQs
1. What was the key reason for acquittal in this case?
The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove the demand for illegal gratification, which is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
2. Can recovery of bribe money alone lead to conviction?
No. The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that recovery alone is insufficient without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe.
3. What legal principle did the Court rely on?
The Court relied on the five-judge bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (AIR 2023 SC 330), holding that proof of demand is a sine qua non for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
