1

CGHC010260512017 2026:CGHC:40724

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

THE DATE WHEN

THE CASE IS

RESERVED

THE DATE WHEN THE

JUDGMENT IS

PRONOUNCED

THE DATE WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE

Operative Full

07.9.2026 18.9.2026 **** 18.9.2026

CRA No. 569 of 2017

Murli Prasad Choudari S/o Shri Bansi Choudary Aged About 41 Years Occupation

Accountant Office Of Surajpur District Education Officer, R/o Mishra Gali Bhayianath

Road Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

... Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through E O W / A C B, Police Station A C B Raipur, District

Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

... Respondent

For Appellant :Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate

For Respondent/State :Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth, Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2017 passed by Special Judge,

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, “Special Judge”), Surajpur Distt.

Surajpur in Special Session Case No. 04/2015, whereby the learned Special Judge,

after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following

2

manner:-

Conviction U/s Sentence

7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 RI for Three years with fine of

Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof to undergo

SI for Six months

13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, 1988RI for Four years with fine of Rs.5,000/-,

in default thereof to undergo SI for Six

months.

Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Mohit Ram

Rajwade (PW-1) made a written complaint vide Ex-P/1 before Superintendent

of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur complaining inter alia that he is the

President/Manager of Maa Saraswati Shiksha Samiti, and he approached the

office of the District Education Officer in connection with recognition of the

school run by the Samiti. It was alleged that on 20.06.2014, the appellant-

Murali Prasad Choudhary, who was the Accountant of the said office,

demanded a bribe of 15,000/-

₹

from the complainant and asked him to pay

5,000/- immediately, out of which 4,900/- was allegedly paid. Thereafter, on

₹ ₹

21.06.2014, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Bilaspur and submitted a written complaint. During verification, the

complainant was instructed to record his conversation with the appellant.

Conversations dated 23.06.2014 and 24.06.2014 were allegedly recorded on

the complainant's mobile phone, during which the alleged demand was

reduced to 8,000/-

₹

. On the basis of the complaint and the alleged recorded

conversation, the ACB arranged a trap on 30.06.2014. Two independent

panch witnesses and members of the trap team were associated with the

proceedings. The complainant produced the second complaint, the recorded

3

conversation and 8,000/- in sixteen currency notes of 500/- each

₹ ₹

. The

currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and their numbers

were noted in the relevant panchnama. Other necessary proceedings were

also conducted. According to the prosecution, during the trap, the appellant

accepted 8,000/-

₹

from the complainant, counted the money and kept it in the

left pocket of his trousers. Thereafter, he was caught by the police personal.

Upon being questioned, he allegedly disclosed the place where the money

had been kept. The prosecution further alleged recovery of 8,000/- towards

₹

bribe, from the pockect of the troucer of the appellant, along with 1,000/-

₹

stated to have been given towards ABO, totalling 9,000/-

₹

. During

investigation, the relevant documents, mobile SIM and material relating to

the phenolphthalein test were seized. Statements of the complainant, panch

witnesses and members of the trap team were recorded, and the seized

material was sent to the FSL and the F.S.L. report (Ex-P/49) was thereafter

obtained.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence

under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(henceforth referred as ‘the PC Act, 1988’) was filed against the appellant

before competent Court.

4. The learned Special Judge framed charge(s) under Section 7,

13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act against the appellant, who

abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

5. In order to establish the charges against the appellant/ accused,

the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 52

documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was

recorded, in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing

against him in the prosecution evidence claiming himself to be innocent and

4

false implication. Apart from this, appellant has examined Nilambar Maharaj

(DW-1) as a defence witness.

6. After considering evidence adduced by both the parties, learned

Special Court (PC Act) convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections

7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced him, as

has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Against which,

instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the same.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in order to

establish the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of

the PC Act, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the essential

ingredients of ‘demand and acceptance’ of the bribe. However, in the instant

case, the complainant Mohit Ram Rajwade (PW-1) and his accompanying

witnesses Kunwar Sai (PW-3) has completely turned hostile and they have

not supported the case of the prosecution at all. It is further submitted that

the learned Trial Court has held the factum of demand to be proved primarily

on the basis of the transcripts (Ex.-P/26) allegedly prepared from the

conversation recorded on 30.06.2024, i.e., on the date of the trap. However,

the Investigating Officer, Ramakant Sharma (PW-10), has himself admitted in

paragraph 21 of his cross-examination that no certificate under Section 65-B

of the Evidence Act was obtained in respect of the recording of the said

conversation from the tape recorder. He has further admitted that the

recording was downloaded into a CD and thereafter the alleged transcription

(Ex.-P/26) was prepared, but neither the voice sample of the appellant nor

the identity of the voice in the said conversation has been duly proved by the

prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that, although the prosecution

case is that the tainted amount of Rs.8,000/- was recovered from the left

pocket of the appellant's trouser, the complainant himself has not supported

5

the prosecution version that the appellant demanded the said amount as

illegal gratification and thereafter accepted the same from him. On the

contrary, Kunwar Sai (PW-3) has narrated an entirely different version, stating

that the complainant had forcibly placed the said amount in the pocket of the

appellant. It is, therefore, contended that, in view of these material

contradictions and the failure of the material witnesses to support the

prosecution case, the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of

illegal gratification have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned counsel submits that the Special Court has recorded the conviction

merely on the basis of suspicious circumstances, which, in law, cannot

constitute the sole basis for recording a finding of guilt in a criminal case.

Hence, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted

of the charges levelled against him. To substantiate his submissions, learned

counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in

CrA No.2674/2025 (Suresh Kurre vs. State of CG) decided on 11.03.2026;

CrA No.52/2018 (Lavan Singh Churendra vs. State of CG) decided on

01.7.2025 and CrA No.782/2005 (Rishi Ram Paraste Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh) decided on 03.02.2025, by Coordinate Bench of this Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, while

supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the tainted bribe amount

was recovered from the left pocket of the appellant's trousers, which is also

supported by the independent witness (PW-2) as well as the police

witnesses. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Trial Court, upon proper

appreciation of the evidence available on record, has rightly convicted the

appellant and that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference

in the present appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the instant appeal be

dismissed. To substantiate his argument, he placed reliance in the case of

6

ACQA No.260/2019 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Tobius Xaxa) Order dated

16.02.2026, by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

10. The primary pillar of any corruption case is the testimony of the

complainant. In the present case, complainant Mohit Ram Rajwade (PW-1),

was examined by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of

bribe, but he completely turned hostile and did not support the prosecution

case. PW-1 categorically deposed that the appellant, Murli Prasad Choudari,

never demanded any bribe from him. He stated that one Dr. Pratap had

informed him that a bank account (Fixed Deposit) needed to be opened for

getting the school's recognition, and he handed over Rs. 9,000/- to Dr. Pratap

for that purpose. The complainant clearly stated that he did not give any bribe

to the appellant and that the appellant did not demand any money from him

and that the signatures on police documents and panchnamas were obtained

from him at the Rest House under instructions without reading their contents.

However, his complaint letters Ex-P/1 & Ex-P/13 were relied by the

prosecution and documents in respect of getting school’s recognition vide Ex-

P/2 to P/11A were marked in evidence. On cross-examination, nothing was

elicited to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, as

alleged by the prosecution.

11. Karmu Ram Gangeshri (PW-2), a punch witness, has stated that

while working as a Sub-Divisional Officer in the PWD National Highway Sub-

Division, Bilaspur, he was instructed by the Collectorate and the Protocol

Officer to act as a witness for the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). On June 30,

2014, he visited the ACB office in Bilaspur, where he was introduced to co-

witness Mr. Khunte (PW-7). Accompanied by the ACB team, they went to

7

Surajpur and stayed at Sunday House, where they met complainant Mohit

Ram Rajwade and Kunwarsai. After reading the written complaint submitted

by Mohit Ram, both witnesses signed, which is marked as Exhibit P-13. The

complainant thereafter played on his mobile phone a recorded conversation

concerning a monetary transaction. The ACB officials prepared a CD of the

said conversation and seized it vide Ex.P-15. The complainant also handed

over 8,000/- to the ACB officials, in respect of which a panchnama (Ex.P-16)

₹

was prepared. This witness further stated that Inspector Ramakant Sharma

directed peon Shinde to apply phenolphthalein powder to those currency

notes. This witness searched the complainant's shirt pocket and found

nothing therein. The tainted currency was thereafter placed in the

complainant's pocket by Shinde. The complainant was instructed not to shake

hands with anyone until he had spoken to the accused. A solution was

prepared by Constable Vedram Sinha (PW-9). The hands of other persons

were initially dipped in the solution, which remained without any change in

colour. When Shinde's hand was subsequently dipped, the solution turned

pink. The solution was seized by the ACB officials. The entire team thereafter

proceeded to the office of the District Education Officer. This witness along

with other panch witness Khunte and Inspector Sharma remained outside the

office, while the complainant and a constable went inside. After receiving the

pre-arranged signal from the complainant, Constable Sinha entered the

premises and caught hold hand of Murli Prasad Choudari (appellant), who

had come out into the verandah. The ACB officials disclosed their identity and

took the accused inside, where the panch witnesses also joined them. He

(this witness) was searched and thereafter, he searched the accused's

pocket, from which currency notes were recovered. On being dipped those

currency notes in the solution prepared by the ACB personal, the solution

8

turned pink. Relevant documents were prepared at the spot and signed by

the witnesses. The accused was thereafter handed over to the police.

11.1 The team returned to the Rest House, where a Patwari was

called and a spot map was prepared. The accused was also medically

examined. The witness identified his signatures on various documents,

including the complainant's personal-search panchnama (Ex.P-17), voice-

recorder handing-over panchnama (Ex.P-18), preliminary panchnama (Ex.P-

19), the accused's personal-search panchnama (Ex.P-28), recovery and

seizure documents relating to the tainted currency and other articles (Exs. P-

29 to P-33), the seizure of the CD containing the recorded conversation

(Ex.P-15A), the spot chemical-test proceedings (Ex.P-34), spot map (Ex.P-

23), arrest panchnama (Ex.P-35), proceedings panchnama (Ex.P-24), and

transcription panchnamas (Exs.P-25 and P-26). He, however, stated that his

statement had not been recorded by the police.

11.2 In cross-examination, Karmu Ram Gangeshri (PW-2) has

admitted that he had previously acted as a witness in three or four ACB

cases. On June 30, 2014, he traveled from Bilaspur to Surajpur in a same

vehicle with Inspector Sharma, a constable, a peon, and the co-witness,

arriving at Sunday House around 9:00–9:30 a.m. He admitted that neither the

police nor the panch witnesses searched one another before departure, and

no local police were informed or called either at Sunday House or prior to

visiting the District Education Officer's (DEO) office. At the Sunday House, the

recorded mobile conversation was played, a CD was prepared,

phenolphthalein was applied to the currency notes and the chemical-test

solution was prepared. He could not state the name of the person who

prepared the CD and stated only that it was prepared by the police operator.

This witness further admitted that, even when they proceeded from the

9

Sunday House to the office of the District Education Officer, the ACB officials

had not informed the local police. The two panch witnesses and Inspector

Sharma remained outside the office gate, approximately 50 metres away from

the office, while the complainant and a constable went inside. He expressly

admitted that, since the panch witnesses remained outside and the accused

was inside his office, he had no knowledge of what transpired between the

complainant and the accused inside the accused's room.

12. Kunwar Sai (PW-3), who is said to be accompanying witness to

the complainant, has stated that he knew both the complainant and the

accused and he accompanied the complainant to the DEO office but

remained outside and had no knowledge of their conversation. He

categorically stated that the complainant forcibly put the money into the

accused's pocket, whereupon the accused immediately said that no money

was required and, while following the complainant outside, repeatedly asked

him to take the money back. The accused was thereafter apprehended by the

persons waiting outside. The witness denied the prosecution version

regarding demand and acceptance of gratification and stated that he had not

given any statement to the police. He further admitted that he did not know

the contents or purpose of Ex.P-19 and had signed it at the instance of the

police. Thus, his testimony does not support the case of the prosecution, that

there was any demand or acceptance of any illegal gratification by the

accused.

13. RL Khunte (PW-7), a Commercial Tax Officer, was second panch

witness in this case. More or less, he has also supported the deposition of

Karmu Ram Gangeshri (PW-2).

14. Ramakant Sharma (PW-10) was the investigating officer, who

conducted the preliminary verification, the pre-trap formalities, and the

10

subsequent raid, resulting in the apprehension of the accused. The witness

deposed regarding the receipt of the initial written complaint (Ex.P-01) from

the complainant (Mohit Ram Rajwade) on 21.06.2014, the subsequent

instructions given to record the bribe demand conversation, and the drawing

up of the preliminary panchnama (Ex.P-12). The testimony details, the

meticulous steps undertaken prior to the trap, including the requisition of

panch witnesses (K.R. Gangeshri and R.L. Khunte), the verification of the

second complaint (Ex.P-13), the recording of the demand conversation, and

the serial numbering and phenolphthalein powder application on the trap

money (Rs. 8,000/-) as recorded in Ex.P-16. Furthermore, the witness

corroborated the demonstration and execution of the sodium carbonate

solution tests, which yielded positive results, confirming the handling of

tainted currency by the accused. This witness led the trap party to the District

Education Office, Surajpur, on 30.06.2014, where the pre-arranged signal by

the complainant was acted upon. The witness categorically deposed about

apprehending the accused—holding his right wrist—immediately following the

exchange, recovery of the tainted currency of Rs. 8,000/- alongwith an

additional Rs. 1,000/- from the pocket of the accused's trousers (pursuant to

recovery panchnamas Ex.P-28 and Ex.P-29), and conducting the mandatory

post-trap hand-wash and pocket-wash solution tests which turned pink. The

seizure of relevant documents, including the school recognition file (Ex.P-32),

the mobile SIM card used for conversations (Ex.P-33), and the subsequent

forwarding of the sealed chemical exhibits to the FSL Raipur (Ex.P-49), were

duly affirmed by the witness during examination-in-chief, establishing an

chain of custody and procedural compliance during the investigation.

14.1 A perusal of the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer

reveals significant infirmities and contradictions that undermine the veracity of

11

the prosecution narrative. The witness admitted that several crucial material

objects and seized articles—such as Article A-28 (currency notes) and

Articles A-1 and A-2—bore no signatures of panch witnesses or mandatory

seals at the relevant stages, and that the seized solutions in the vials had lost

their characteristic pink color by the time of trial. More importantly, the witness

conceded that no independent voice sample of the accused was taken, no

FSL voice authentication of the alleged telephonic conversation was

conducted, and no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act

was furnished regarding the electronic audio records. These glaring

omissions, coupled with the admission that the panch witnesses (K.R.

Gangeshri and RL Khunte) remained seated in the vehicle outside and did

not witness the actual conversation inside the office, cast serious doubts on

the veracity of the trap proceedings and the independent corroboration of the

alleged demand and acceptance.

15. Though KR Gangeshri (PW-2), Mahendra Kumar Gupta-Patwari

(PW-4), Sitaram Yadav (PW-5), Anand Prakash Ekka (PW-6), RL Khute (PW-

7), Lawrence Khes (PW-8) and Constable Vedram Singa (PW-9) supported

the prosecution case regarding the procedure of trap proceedings, however,

none of the witnesses deposed in support of demand of bribe by the accused.

16. Upon evaluation of the entire evidence adduced, it could be

observed that none of the witnesses supported the most essential ingredient

of the offence, namely, the demand for illegal gratification, as alleged by the

prosecution. The Special Court, however, convicted the accused by inferring

from the attendant circumstances, particularly based on the transcript

(Ex-P/26) and recovery of currency notes from the accused, but the said

transcript has not been proved in accordance with law, i.e. the said voice

present on it is the voice of the appellant.

12

17. Now, it is necessary to address the ingredients required to attract

the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC

Act. The same are extracted as under:-

Section 7:- Public servant taking gratification other than

legal remuneration in respect of an official act. – Whoever,

being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains

or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for

himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever,

other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing

or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing

to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or

disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to

render any service or disservice to any person, with the

Central Government or any State Government or Parliament

or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority,

corporation or Government Company referred to in clause (C)

of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or

otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall

be not less than three years but which may extend to seven

years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a public servant. –

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal

misconduct,-

a) xxxxx

(b) xxxxx

(c) xxxxxx

(d) If he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or

for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary

advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,

obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing

or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public

servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or

pecuniary advantage

without any public interest. xxxxx

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall

13

be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not

less than four years but

which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

18. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench decision of the

Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023)

4 SCC 731, where the Apex Court considered when the demand and

acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 to be said to be proved

along with ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w

13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in paragraph No.68, it has been held as under :

"88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is

summarised as under:

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.

88.3 (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be

proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral

and documentary evidence.

88.4 (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public

servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver

without there being any demand from the public

servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and

receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of

acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a

case, there need not be a prior demand by the

14

public servant.

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant

makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the

demand and tenders the demanded gratification

which in turn is received by the public servant, it is

a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment,

the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates

from the public servant. This is an offence under

Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act

iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the

offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the

public servant respectively have to be proved by

the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words,

mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification

without anything more would not make it an offence

under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii)

respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7

of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there

must be an offer which emanates from the bribe

giver which is accepted by the public servant which

would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand

by the public servant when accepted by the bribe

giver and in turn there is a payment made which is

received by the public servant, would be an offence

of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and

(ii) of the Act

88.5 (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the

demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal

gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an

inference only when the foundational facts have been proved

by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the

absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the

Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while

considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by

the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is

subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of

rebuttal presumption stands.

88.6 (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or

has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial,

15

demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the

evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence,

either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution

can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does

not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the

accused public servant.

88.7 (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned,

on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the

court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was

for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said

Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court

as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the

said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does

not apply to Section 13(1) (d) and (ii) of the Act.

88.8 (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under

Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact

referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory

presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.”

19. Thus, the legal position as regards to the essentials under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, 1988, is extracted above.

Regarding the mode of proof of demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay

bribe by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public

servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal

gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a

case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. The

presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment

of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an

inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral

and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of

the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of

fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the

prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by

16

the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. The mode of

proof of demand and acceptance is either orally or by documentary evidence

or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial

does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public

servant. Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts

in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal

gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the

said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal

presumption or a presumption in law.

20. Further, in the recent judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

matter of P. Somaraju vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC

OnLine SC 2291), in para 18 it has held as under:-

18.The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC

Act is not automatic and arises only once the foundational

facts of demand and acceptance are proved. The same has

been reiterated time and again by this Court; in the recent

decision of Rajesh Gupta Vs. State through Central Bureau of

Investigation (2022 INSC 359), it was held:-

“17.For an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act,

the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua hon to

prove the guilt. Mere recovery of currency notes

cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC

Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that

accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to

be a bribe, The proof of acceptance of illegal

gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand.”

21. Accordingly, the legal position as regards to the essentials to be

established to fasten criminal culpability on an accused are demand and

acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. To put it otherwise, proof of

demand is sine qua non for the offences to be established under Sections 7

17

and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and dehors the proof of demand

the offences under the two Sections could not be established. Therefore mere

acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of bribe or as undue pecuniary

advantage or illegal gratification or the recovery of the same would not be

sufficient to prove the offences under the two Sections in the absence of

evidence to prove the demand.

22. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, the complainant Mohit

Ram Rajwade (PW-1) is the star witness on the question of demand.

However, he has not supported the prosecution case. He categorically stated

that the appellant never demanded any bribe from him and that he had not

paid any bribe to the appellant. Aforesaid facts also do not get any support

from alleged accompanying witness Kunwar Sai (PW-3) or panch witnesses

Karmu Ram Gangeshir (PW-2) and RL Khute (PW-7) or any other witnesses.

23. The prosecution has relied upon the alleged electronic

conversation and its transcript to establish demand. However, the evidentiary

foundation for relying upon the said electronic material is itself seriously

deficient. The Investigating Officer (PW-10) admitted in cross-examination

that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was

obtained in respect of the electronic recording. No voice sample of the

appellant was obtained and no forensic examination was conducted to

establish that the voice in the alleged recording was that of the appellant.

24. Upon careful and comprehensive evaluation of the entire

evidence on record, this Court finds that the foundational requirement for

establishing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, namely the

proof of demand of illegal gratification, has not been proved by the

prosecution. It is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is the

gravamen of the offence and unless the prosecution proves such demand

18

beyond reasonable doubt, mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the

accused cannot lead to conviction.

25. Consequently, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Special Judge,

(constituted under PC Act, 1988), Surajpur, District Surajpur, in Special

Sessions Case No.04/2015, convicting the appellant for offences punishable

under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, is

hereby set aside/quashed. Resultantly, the appellant is acquitted of the said

charges framed against him.

26. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall stand

discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six

months in view of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to the appellant in

accordance with law.

27. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court

be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Court for information and necessary

compliance, if any.

28. Appeal allowed.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Judge

Bini

19