2026 INSC 1084 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4573 OF 2026

AJIT KUMAR …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND ....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and

order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High Court of

Jharkhand at Ranchi (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 135 of 2021 (Ajit Kumar Vs. State

of Jharkhand) affirming the conviction and sentence imposed

on the appellant by the Court of Special Judge, Anti -

Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa (briefly ‘the

2

Special Judge’ hereinafter) in Vigilance Case No. 17 of 2010

vide the judgment and order dated 27.02.2021.

2. Be it stated that by the aforesaid judgment and

order dated 27.02.2021, learned Special Judge had convicted

the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’ hereinafter) and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for four

years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00 with a default

stipulation for each of the two offences, both the sentences to

run concurrently.

3. On 24.07.2026, when this Court had issued notice,

learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that though

the appellant had undergone the sentence of imprisonment

and paid the fine, yet he would like to pursue the related

special leave petition to get his name cleared. On 23.09.2026,

leave was granted and the appeal was heard whereafter the

judgment was reserved.

4. At the outset, it would be appropriate to narrate

the prosecution case.

3

4.1. Prosecution case is that PW-1 Durgapad Singh

Munda was appointed to the post of orderly in the

Government High School at Sirum on 01.02.2010 but his

salary was not paid. Appellant was an Assistant in the District

Education Office at Saraikella. Durgapad Singh Munda

approached the appellant for release of his salary. Appellant

demanded Rs. 5,000.00 as bribe for getting the salary

released.

4.2. However, Durgapad Singh Munda did not like to

pay the bribe. Therefore, on 19.04.2010, he submitted an

application to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau,

Ranchi (briefly ‘the SP’ hereinafter). The SP deputed PW-2,

Police Inspector Shyamlal Champiya, to verify the complaint

and to submit report. Inspector Shyamlal Champiya

submitted report on 19.05.2010 stating that the allegations

made in the complaint were true. Thereafter, Vigilance PS

Case No. 17/2010 was registered under Sections 7 and 13(2)

of the PC Act.

4

4.3. PW-11 DSP Ramashish Raut was assigned the task

of investigation. He completed the investigation and

submitted the chargesheet on 10.07.2010 alongwith the

sanction order before the Court of the learned Special Judge.

Vide the order dated 12.07.2010, learned Special Judge took

cognizance under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)

of the PC Act.

4.4. Charges under the aforesaid provisions were

framed by the learned Special Judge on 14.12.2010. However,

the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried.

4.5. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses including the

complainant Durgapad Singh Munda as PW -1, Police

Inspector Shyamlal Champiya as PW-2, and DSP Ramashish

Raut, the investigating officer, as PW-11. Prosecution also

exhibited a number of documents.

4.6. On conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge

convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.

4.7. Aggrieved thereby, appellant preferred appeal

before the High Court and vide the judgment and order dated

5

21.07.2022, the High Court dismissed the appeal and

confirmed the conviction and sentence.

5. Mr. Shambo Nandy, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the trial court erred in convicting the

appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. The High

Court also fell in error in affirming such conviction and

sentence.

5.1. He submits that prosecution has failed to establish

the alleged demand of illegal gratification by the appellant

beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of demand of illegal

gratification is the sine qua non for an offence under the

aforesaid provisions. Prosecution relied entirely on the

uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.

5.2. It is evident that the demand of illegal gratification

and acceptance of the same by the appellant remained wholly

unproved. The prosecution itself admitted that the

transaction took place inside the residence of the appellant in

the complete absence of the trap team and without the

presence of any shadow or independent witness.

6

5.3. The trial court erred in inferring acceptance of such

illegal gratification by subsequent recovery of currency notes

from the residence of the appellant which were covered with

the chemical even though the solution turned pink when the

fingers of the appellant were dipped in the same. In this

connection, he submits that mere recovery of the alleged

tainted money from the residence of the appellant would not

prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

5.4. Learned counsel submits that the trial proceedings

were vitiated by serious and uncurable infirmities which

strike at the root of the prosecution case. The phenolphthalein

test was conducted belatedly which cannot be said to have

proved the prosecution case.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent-State of Jharkhand Mr. Mukherjee submits that

the trial court based its conviction on a correct appreciation

of the evidence on record. It does not suffer from any error or

infirmity. The High Court rightly appreciated the evidence as

well as the judgment of conviction and affirmed the same.

7

6.1. Learned state counsel submits that on a

wholesome reading of the evidence on record, it is crystal clear

that the demand for illegal gratification and acceptance of the

same by the appellant stood proved. Mere discrepancies here

and there would not be sufficient to dislodge the conviction.

The High Court was fully justified in affirming such

conviction.

6.2. In the circumstances, learned state counsel

submits that no case has been made out for interference with

the impugned conviction and sentence as affirmed by the

High Court. In any view of the matter, appellant has served

out his sentence. Therefore, the appeal has become an

academic exercise. In the circumstances, he seeks dismissal

of the appeal.

7. Submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

8. PW-1 is the complainant Durgapad Singh Munda

himself. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he joined

service as Peon in the Government High School at Sirum on

8

01.02.2010. However, he was not paid his salary. For this

purpose, he went to the office of the District Education Officer

at Saraikella and submitted an application. Accused Aj it

Kumar, who was an Assistant in the said office, met him and

asked for Rs. 5,000.00 as bribe for release of his salary.

8.1. As PW-1 was averse to the idea of giving bribe, he

lodged a complaint on 19.04.2010 in the office of the Vigilance

Bureau at Ranchi. He stated that Vigilance Inspector

Shyamlal Champiya (PW-2) accompanied him to the office of

the District Education Officer where the accused asked for the

bribe amount. To this, PW-1 stated that he would have to

arrange for the money.

8.2. On 20.05.2010, PW-1 went to the Vigilance Office

and handed over Rs. 5,000.00 there. Chemical was applied

on the currency notes and after instructions of what was to

be done, the currency notes were returned back to PW-1 for

him to hand over the same to the accused.

8.3. PW-1 alongwith the vigilance team reached

Saraikella and gave Rs. 5,000.00 to the accused in his

9

residence. The said amount was received by the accused

whereafter he kept it under his bed. Thereafter , PW-1

alongwith the accused returned to the office of the accused

where he gave indication to the vigilance team. At that stage,

the vigilance team entered into the office of the accused and

apprehended him. Accused was brought to his residence from

where he handed over the bribe money (Rs. 5,000.00) to the

vigilance team. When the trap team brought the accused to

his office and dipped his hands, the colour of the water

(solution) turned to pink. PW-1 identified the accused in the

dock.

8.4. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that in the

office of the District Education Officer, he did not meet any

other official except the accused. He did not lodge any

complaint before the District Education Officer regarding

demand of bribe by the accused. He denied the defence

suggestion that he had taken debt from the accused to tide

over his financial difficulties because he did not receive

10

salary; when he was asked to return the debt money, PW-1

implicated the accused in the case falsely.

9. PW-2 Shyamlal Champiya is the Police Inspector

who was deputed by the SP, Vigilance Bureau to verify the

complaint and to submit report. In his examination-in-chief,

he stated that on verification of the complaint, he found the

allegations to be true and , therefore, submitted the

verification report to the SP. He stated that on 20.05.2010, in

the morning hours, members of the trap team and the

complainant had reached the Vigilance Office at Ranchi where

a physical demonstration was presented before the members

of the trap team. On completion of the pre-trap formalities,

the trap team went to the office of the District Education

Officer at Saraikella. PW-1 was sent to meet the accused.

Accused alongwith PW-1 went to his residence and returned

back to office after 10-15 minutes. It was then that the

complainant PW-1 disclosed that the accused had kept the

bribe money at his residence. Upon this, the police personnel

from the Vigilance Bureau arrested the accused and brought

11

him to his residence. During the course of the search, Rs.

5,000.00 was recovered from under his bed. The numbers of

the currency notes tallied with the notes memorandum

prepared by the vigilance team. Thereafter, accused was

brought to his office and when both his hands were dipped

into the solution, it turned pink.

9.1. He stated in his cross-examination that on

22.04.2010, around noon, he had accompanied the

complainant to the office of the District Education Officer.

Only the complainant PW-1 talked with the accused. He had

heard the conversation between PW-1 and the accused on the

basis of which he submitted his verification report.

Interestingly, PW-2 stated that he had submitted the

verification report late because the complainant had no

money.

10. Police Inspector Shashi Bhushan was a member of

the trap team. He is PW-3. In his evidence-in-chief, he stated

that on 19.05.2010, he was posted as Police Inspector at the

Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. On that day, DSP Ramashish Raut

12

(PW-11) constituted a trap team on the orders of the SP. PW-

3 was also made a member of the trap team. On the next day

i.e. on 20.05.2010 at 05:00 am, members of the trap team

assembled in the office of the Vigilance Bureau. There,

complainant PW-1 was also present. One currency note of Rs.

1000.00 denomination and eight currency notes of Rs. 500.00

denomination were collected for the trap operation. Chemical

reaction of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein on the

currency notes was demonstrated. The currency notes were

thereafter handed over to PW-1 with the instruction that he

would pay the said amount on demand to the accused . The

trap team thereafter proceeded and reached the office of

District Education Officer at Saraikella at about 11:30 am.

From the office, complainant PW-1 alongwith accused Ajit

Kumar went outside on motorcycle. After they returned back,

PW-1 disclosed that he had given the bribe amount to the

accused at his residence. Trap team then arrested the

accused Ajit Kumar and took him to his residence. In the

residence, Ajit Kumar took out the currency notes from below

his pillow. Those tallied with the memorandum of currency

13

notes prepared previously. He stated that the hands of the

accused were ‘washed’ in the solution kept separately in two

glass containers. Thereafter, accused Ajit Kumar was brought

to his office where he handed over the documents relating to

salary of the complainant PW-1.

10.1. In his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that

accused was staying in a rented accommodation. Distance

between the office and the residence of the accused was about

¼ kilometer. Bed, bed-sheet and pillow were not seized from

the residence of the accused. Hands of the accused were

‘washed’ in his residence. Accused was thereafter brought to

the office from his residence where he was arrested.

11. Similar is the statement of PW-4 Constable Dinesh

Kumar Singh, who was also a member of the trap team. In his

evidence-in-chief, he stated that PW-1 informed the trap team

that the accused had kept the bribe amount in his house.

They (trap team) alongwith the independent witnesses went

to the rented house of the accused. On the lock of the house

being opened by the accused, it was searched in the presence

14

of two independent witnesses. Accused took out Rs. 5,000.00

from under his pillow. Thereafter they brought the accused to

his office whereafter both of his hands were dipped into the

prepared solution which turned pink.

11.1. He stated in his cross-examination that PW-1 had

disclosed to him that transaction of money took place in the

office of the accused. Accused went to his house by a

motorcycle to keep the money there. Though he was present

at the time of seizure and arrest, the seizure memo did not

contain his signature.

12. PW-5 is Constable Sudhir Kumar Thakur who was

a member of the trap team. As per his deposition, the accused

was arrested in his office after PW-1 gave indication that the

bribe money was paid to him. After the accused was arrested,

complainant PW-1 told them that the accused had gone to his

residence to keep the bribe money there.

12.1. He admitted in his cross-examination that

complainant PW-1 did not hand over the bribe money to the

accused before him. Though accused was caught in his office

15

but no money was recovered from him. He could not

remember as to who searched the accused. The seizure list

did not have his signatures.

13. Assistant Sub-Inspector Devendra Nath Upadhayay, PW-

6, was a member of the trap team. According to him, complainant

Durgapad Singh Munda came out alongwith the accused from the office

of the accused and both of them went from there on a motorcycle.

Members of the trap team followed them in a vehicle but the

motorcycle went ahead whereafter they (complainant and the

accused) returned back to the office. After some time,

complainant disclosed to PW-2 that he had given bribe to the

accused. After they got hold of the accused, they took him to

his residence where the accused brought out the bribe money

from his bed kept under the pillow. Fingers of both hands of

the accused were dipped into the solution which turned pink.

14. PW-8 Chandeshwar Mahato was posted as the

Head Clerk in the office of the District Education Officer at

Saraikella. Though he accompanied the vigilance team to the

16

residence of the accused, he remained outside the house

when the vigilance team went inside.

14.1. In his cross-examination, he stated that nothing

was shown to him. He had no knowledge as to which thing

was brought from where. He had just put his signature on

some documents on the direction of the vigilance officials.

Vigilance officials told him that money was recovered from the

house of the accused

15. Similar is the evidence of PW-9 Chandan Kumar

Patnayak, who was a Clerk in the office of the District

Education Officer, Saraikella. In his cross-examination, he

stated that vigilance officials told him to put his signature on

certain papers whereafter he put his signature. He was not

aware of the contents of such papers. He came out of his office

due to the chaos when vigilance officials caught hold of the

accused. He could not say as to what happened in the house

of the accused. He did not see any money. It was on the

direction of the police that he deposed that currency notes

were recovered from the residence of the accused.

17

16. According to PW-10, Ajit Baxrai, who was the

Assistant Director of Employment and was part of the trap

team, after PW-1 and the accused came back to the office from

the residence of the accused on motorcycle, PW-1 disclosed

that he had given bribe of Rs. 5,000.00 to the accused

whereafter accused was arrested. Accused admitted that he

had accepted bribe from PW-1. It was then that members of

the trap team took the accused to his residence.

16.1. He admitted in his cross-examination that transaction of

money was not witnessed by him. Money was not recovered from the

possession of the accused in the office. The house of the

accused was situated at a distance of about one and a half

kilometer from the office.

17. PW-11 Ramashish Raut is the Investigating Officer.

In his cross-examination, he stated that PW-1 and PW-2

informed the trap party at about 12:00 noon that the bribe

money was given to the accused on his demand who kept the

same in his house and thereafter returned back to the office.

It was then that members of the trap team entered the office

18

of the District Education Officer and confronted the accused.

Members of the trap team alongwith the accused, PW-1 and

two employees of the office proceeded to the rented house of

the accused. It was situated on the first floor. Inside his room,

upon interrogation, accused took out Rs. 5,000.00 from his

bed which matched and tallied with the notes memorandum

prepared for the trap. Fingers of both the hands of the

accused were dipped into the solution in the presence of

independent witnesses which turned to pink colour.

17.1. PW-11 in his cross-examination admitted that no

one had seen the accused taking money. Transaction of

money had taken place in the office of the accused at around

11:35 am to 12:00 noon. At that time, he was outside the

office.

18. From an analysis of the evidence as extracted

above, what transpires is that PW-1 had approached the

vigilance office on 19.04.2010 and lodged the complaint

regarding demand of bribe by the accused. PW-2 was assigned

the task of verifying the complaint and to submit report. It

19

appears that he had accompanied PW-1 on 22.04.2010 to the

office of the accused where he is stated to have overheard the

demand of bribe made by the accused to PW-1. However, there

was considerable delay in the submission of his report, which

was submitted on 19.05.2010. He explained the delay by

saying that PW-1 could not immediately arrange the bribe

money. But that had nothing to do with the truthfulness or

otherwise of the complaint. Be that as it may, the trap

operation was carried out on 20.05.2010 but there are

inconsistencies galore in the narration of facts. Without

getting bogged down on the inconsistencies, what is startling

to note is that on 20.05.2010 when PW-1 offered to pay the

bribe money to the accused in his office, both of them left for

the residence of the accused where it is alleged that the bribe

money was given to the accused. According to the version of

some witnesses, the accused was apprehended in his

residence; on the other hand, as per the version of some other

witnesses, after PW-1 and accused came back to the office

from the residence and on PW-1 signaling to the vigilance

team that he had paid the bribe money, the vigilance team

20

barged into the office of the accused and apprehended him.

As per this version, accused was then taken to his residence

from where the bribe money was allegedly recovered from

under his pillow. But what is uniformly common is that none

of the witnesses have seen the accused demanding bribe or

PW-1 handing over the bribe money to the accused. There is

no evidence in this regard. It is only the uncorroborated

testimony of PW-1. A couple of witnesses have even gone to

the extent of saying that they had signed the seizure list on

being directed to do so by the vigilance officials.

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

1

(2015) 10 SCC 152

21

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.

20. This aspect was also gone into by a Constitution

Bench of this Court in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of

NCT of Delhi)

2. The Constitution Bench declared that proof of

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public

servant as a fact in issue has to be proved by the prosecution.

It is essential to establish the guilt of the accused public

(2023) 4 SCC 731

22

servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act.

This Court declared amongst others, as follows:

88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal

gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by

the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish

the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections

7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the

accused, the prosecution has to first prove the

demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent

acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can

be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the

nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

21. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Aman Bhatia

Vs. State

3, surveyed the law on this aspect and came to the

conclusion that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is

insufficient to establish the charge(s) against an accused

under the PC Act. The Bench held that to sustain a conviction

under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, the prosecution must

prove beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant

voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe.

3

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013

23

Thus, the demand for bribe is the sine qua non for

establishing an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

The Bench held as under:

52. It is well-settled that mere recovery of tainted

money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the

charges against an accused under the PC Act. To

sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of

the Act respectively, it must be proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily

accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The

courts have consistently reiterated that the demand

for a bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence

under Section 7 of the PC Act.

21.1. Finally, the Bench concluded as follows:

55. From the above exposition of law, it may be safely

concluded that mere possession and recovery of

tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the

absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient to

establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of

the PC Act respectively. Consequently, without

evidence of demand for illegal gratification, it cannot

be said that the public servant used corrupt or illegal

means, or abused his position, to obtain any

valuable thing or pecuniary advantage in terms of

Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

24

22. In a recent decision of this Court in Jaswinder

Singh Vs. State of Punjab

4, authored by one of us (Ujjal

Bhuyan, J.), all the above decisions have been analysed and

reiterated. In the facts of that case, it has been held as under:

21. Under such circumstances, it is evident that

neither the demand nor acceptance of the bribe can

be said to have been proved. As a matter of fact, no

one saw the appellant making the demand for bribe

and no one saw PW-1 handing over the bribe money

to the appellant nor acceptance of the same by the

appellant. The fact situation of this case, thus, is

squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in

Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and in Aman

Bhatia.

23. In so far the present case is concerned, proof of

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused

as a fact in issue could not be proved by the prosecution.

24. That being the position, it cannot be said that the

charge against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the

PC Act was proved, not to speak of beyond all reasonable

doubt. Consequently, we set aside the judgment and order

4

2026 SCC OnLine SC 1952

25

dated 27.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge in

Vigilance Case No. 17 of 2010 as well as the judgment and

order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High Court of

Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 135 of 2021. It is

declared that the charge framed against the appellant Ajit

Kumar under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act could not be

proved. Ajit Kumar is thus cleared of the said charges.

25. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed.

…...…………………………J.

[UJJAL BHUYAN]

…..….………………………J.

[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 05, 2026.