1

2026:CGHC:24522

The date when the

judgment is

reserved

The date when

the judgment is

pronounced

The date when the

judgment is uploaded on

the website

Operative Full

06.05.2026 18.06.2026 -- 18.06.2026

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 261 of 2017

1 - Prakash Narayan Kaumarya, S/o Late Shri Rampal Kaumarya, Aged

About 54 Years, Occupation- Accountant, Chief Medical and Health

Office, Rajnandgaon, R/o Village Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, District

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through:- S.P. A.C.B. Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate

For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

2

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgment

1.The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated

04.02.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of

Corruption Act), Rajnandgaon, in Special Criminal Case No.

1/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced

in the following manner:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988

R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine

of Rs. 2,000/- in default of

payment of fine amount to

undergo additional R.I. for 6

months

U/s 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13 (2) of Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988

R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine

of Rs. 2,000/- in default of

payment of fine amount to

undergo additional R.I. for 6

months

(Both the sentences to run

concurrently)

2.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Vinod

Kumar Bagde, aged about 40 years, working as Rural Health

Coordinator at Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), had

submitted an application for withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- from his

General Provident Fund (GPF) account for the medical treatment

of his wife. The application was forwarded through the competent

authority and submitted before the office of the Chief Medical and

Health Officer, Rajnandgaon. It is alleged that on 24.01.2014,

3

accused Prakash Narayan Kaumarya, who was working as

Accountant in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer,

Rajnandgaon, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from

the complainant for processing and passing the GPF withdrawal

application. Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant lodged a

written complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Raipur

on 25.01.2014. After verification of the complaint and recording of

the conversation regarding demand of bribe, a trap was organized

by the ACB on 29.01.2014 in the presence of independent panch

witnesses. The complainant was provided with tainted currency

notes amounting to Rs.1,000/- treated with phenolphthalein

powder and was instructed to hand over the same to the accused

only on demand. Pursuant to the trap proceedings, the

complainant met the accused in his office at Rajnandgaon and, on

the accused's demand, paid the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/-.

After receiving the predetermined signal from the complainant, the

trap team immediately entered the office and apprehended the

accused. During the proceedings, the hand-wash of the accused

in sodium carbonate solution turned pink, indicating contact with

the tainted currency notes. The tainted amount of Rs.1,000/-,

consisting of ten currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination, was

recovered from the table under the exclusive control and custody

of the accused and the serial numbers of the recovered notes

matched those recorded in the pre-trap panchnama. The seized

articles and wash solutions were sent to the Forensic Science

4

Laboratory, Raipur and the chemical examination report confirmed

the presence of phenolphthalein. After completion of investigation,

obtaining the requisite sanction for prosecution and collecting

relevant documentary evidence, the prosecution submitted a

charge-sheet against the accused, Prakash Narayan Kaumarya,

alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. Pursuant thereto, the learned Trial Court framed

charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences, to which

the appellant denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried.

3.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the

accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 11

witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused/appellant was

recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances

appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence

and false implication. In his defence, he examined one witness

namely Manmohan Giri as D.W.-1.

4.The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the entire oral as well

as documentary evidence available on record, found the

prosecution case to be credible and trustworthy. Accordingly, vide

judgment dated 04.02.2017 the trial Court convicted and

sentenced the accused/appellant as detailed in para 1 of the said

judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5

5.Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2017,

contending that the prosecution has failed to establish the

foundational and indispensable ingredient of "demand" of illegal

gratification, which is a sine qua non for sustaining a conviction

under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. It was submitted that the prosecution case rests upon the

allegation that a demand for bribe was made telephonically by the

appellant on 24.01.2014. However, the Investigating Officer failed

to collect and produce the call detail records (CDRs) of either the

appellant or the complainant. In the absence of such vital

evidence, the alleged telephonic conversation remained

unsubstantiated and, therefore, an adverse inference ought to

have been drawn against the prosecution in terms of Section

114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant

(PW-5), in his cross-examination, categorically admitted that his

G.P.F. sanction work had already been completed on 27.01.2014

and that he had received the sanction order prior to the trap

proceedings conducted on 29.01.2014. It was, therefore, argued

that no official work of the complainant was pending with the

appellant on the date of the alleged trap and, consequently, there

existed neither any occasion nor any motive for the appellant to

demand illegal gratification. Reliance was also placed upon the

dispatch register (Exhibit D-2), which, according to the defence,

6

conclusively establishes that the sanction order had already been

dispatched prior to the trap.

It was further contended that no voice recorder or trap

recorder was provided to the complainant during the verification

proceedings and that neither the mobile phone, SIM card, landline

details nor the IMEI particulars of the concerned devices were

seized or investigated to establish the alleged telephonic

conversation dated 24.01.2014. In the absence of such material

evidence, the prosecution story becomes highly doubtful. It was

also submitted that no voice sample was obtained and no forensic

examination or expert opinion was secured to prove that the

alleged recorded conversation, if any, contained the voice of the

appellant. Consequently, the alleged demand and acceptance of

bribe remained wholly uncorroborated. Learned counsel further

argued that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from

the conscious possession of the appellant but were found lying on

the table. Such circumstances, according to the defence, are

inconsistent with the conduct of a person voluntarily accepting

illegal gratification. It was also contended that the independent

witnesses did not support the prosecution case regarding the

alleged demand and acceptance of bribe and failed to corroborate

the conversation allegedly exchanged between the complainant

and the appellant at the time of the trap. The learned Trial Court

failed to properly appreciate the material contradictions, omissions

and deficiencies in the prosecution evidence. Therefore, the

7

impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is unsustainable

in law and liable to be set aside.

Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Chander Vs. State of

Delhi; AIR 2016 S.C. 298, Sanjaysingh Ramrao Chavan Vs.

Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others; 2015 (3) SCC 123,

Rakesh Kapoor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; 2012 (13) SCC

552 and this Court’s judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1998 in the matter of Shiv Kumar

Vs. State of M.P. (Now C.G.).

6.Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned

judgment and submitted that the prosecution has successfully

established the demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal

gratification through the cogent and reliable testimony of the

complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Thus, the appeal

being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.

Reliance has been placed on this Court’s decision dated

16.02.2026 passed in ACQA No. 260 of 2019 in the matter of

State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Tobius Xaxa.

7.Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available

on record.

8.A perusal of the record reveals that the learned Trial Court framed

charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention

8

of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Trial

Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the

aforesaid offences.

9.It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, the appellant

was serving as an Accountant in the office of the Chief Medical

and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon, whereas the complainant was

posted as Rural Health Coordinator at Community Health Centre,

Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon.

10.The complainant, Vinod Kumar Bangde (PW-5), deposed that

while serving as Rural Health Coordinator at Community Health

Centre, Dongargarh, he had applied for part-final withdrawal of

Rs.50,000/- from his GPF account for the medical treatment of his

wife. He further stated that after processing of his application

through the concerned authorities, he contacted the appellant on

24.01.2014 regarding the sanction of the amount, whereupon the

appellant allegedly demanded illegal gratification at the rate of two

percent of the sanctioned amount. Being unwilling to pay the

bribe, he lodged a written complaint (Ex.P/11) before the ACB on

25.01.2014. He further stated that, pursuant to the complaint, a

voice recorder was provided to him for recording the conversation

with the appellant and a preliminary panchnama (Ex.P/12) was

prepared. Thereafter, on 27.01.2014, he met the appellant,

recorded their conversation regarding the alleged demand of bribe

and handed over the recording to the investigating officer. He

9

further deposed that on 29.01.2014, he appeared before the ACB

office, where a second complaint (Ex.P/13) was submitted, the

voice recorder was seized vide Ex.P/14 and a transcript of the

recorded conversation was prepared and marked as Ex.P/15.

He further deposed that, after completion of the preliminary

proceedings, he accompanied the trap party to the office of the

accused. A pre-trap memorandum (Panchnama) detailing the

proceedings conducted at the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB),

Raipur, was prepared and marked as Ex.P/18. Thereafter, he

handed over the tainted currency amounting to Rs. 1,000/- to the

accused, who accepted the same and placed it on the table. Upon

completion of the transaction, the complainant gave the

predetermined signal to the trap team. The trap team immediately

entered the office, disclosed their identity to the accused.

Subsequently, both hands of the accused were subjected to a

phenolphthalein test by dipping them into a sodium carbonate

solution, which turned pink, thereby indicating contact with the

tainted currency notes. The entire post-trap proceedings were

duly recorded in the recovery memorandum marked as Ex.P/19.

11.Upendra Datt Bhargava (P.W.-6), the panch witness, admitted

his signatures on the complaint application (Ex.P/13), transcription

memo (Ex.P/15), seizure memo of the digital voice recorder

(Ex.P/14), memorandum relating to the personal search of the

complainant (Ex.P/16), tape recorder memorandum (Ex.P/17) and

the pre-trap proceedings memorandum (Ex.P/18). He deposed

10

that he was a member of the trap party and had accompanied the

complainant during the trap proceedings. He further stated that,

after the complainant gave the predetermined signal, the trap

team entered the room where the tainted currency notes were

found lying on the table. Thereafter, the hands of the accused

were subjected to the phenolphthalein test. He identified the

personal search memorandum prepared in respect of the

complainant as Ex.P/21 and of the accused as Ex.P/22. He also

proved the seizure memorandum relating to the recovery of the

tainted currency notes, which was marked as Ex.P/23.

In para 14 of his cross-examination, he stated that, “

यह सहीहै

किमैंनेप्रार्थीद्वाराआरोपीकोपैसादेतेहुएनहींदेखाथा।साक्षीनेस्वतःकहाकि

प्रार्थीकेसाथमैंनहींगयाथा। यह सहीहैकिप्रार्थीअंदरजानेकेबादएकघंटातक

कहांकहांगयाइसकीजानकारीमुझेनहींहै।प्रार्थीकमरेमेंअकेलेगयाथाउसके

साथकोईनहींगयाथा।प्रार्थी

,

आरोपीकोरिश्वतरकमदेकरकरीब

12

बजेके

आसपासवापस आयाथाऔरप्रार्थीबतायाकिकामहोगयाहैतबट्रेपदलकेसभी

सदस्यअंदरगयेथे।ट्रेपदलकेसाथमैंभीआरोपीकेकार्यालयअंदरगयाथा।

आरोपीकेकार्यालयमेंबाहरसेअंदरजानेपरपांचमिनटकासमयलगाहोगा।

आरोपीकमरेकेअंदरथाऔरए

.सी.

बीकेसिपाहीवगैरह आरोपीकोपकड़ेथे। यह

सहींहैकिजिस स्थानपरआरोपीकेबैठनेकाटेबलथाउसकेआसपासअन्य

कर्मचारीकेबैठनेकाटेबलथा। यहकहनासहींहैकिमैंरिश्वतलेनदेनकेसमयनहीं

था। यह सहींहैकिपुलिसवालोंनेआरोपीसेरिश्वतरकम

1000 रू.

बरामदकिये

तबमैंनेकार्यवाहीपरहस्ताक्षरकियाथा।

Further in para 15, he stated that, “

यह सहीहैकिरिश्वतकेनोट

”

अभियुक्तकेटेबलपररखाहुआथा।

11

12.The prosecution did not examine the other panch witness,

namely Lalaram Verma, before the learned Trial Court.

13.Budheshwar Sai Painkra (P.W.-11), the Investigating Officer,

deposed in detail regarding the entire course of investigation and

trap proceedings in his examination-in-chief.

In para 19 of his cross-examination, he stated that, “

मैंनहीं

बतासकताकिदिनांक

27.01.2014

कोप्रार्थीनेस्वीकृतिआदेश स्वतःअपनेहाथों

लेजाकरप्राप्तकरनेकापावतीदियाथा। यह सहींहैकिइससंबंधमेंकोईदस्तावेज

मैंनेजप्तनहींकियाथा। यह सहीहैकिदिनांक

22.01.2014

तककोईशिकायत

ए.सी.बी.

कार्यालयमेंप्रार्थीद्वारानहींकीगयीथीकिआरोपी

,

प्रार्थीसेरिश्वतकी

मांगकररहाहै। यहकहनासहीहैकिपहलीशिकायतदिनांक

25.01.2014 को

प्राप्तहुआथा। यह सहीहैकिप्रदर्शपी

-11

केशिकायतपत्रकेअनुसारफोनके

माध्यमसेआरोपीऔरप्रार्थीकेमध्यबातचीतहोनेकाउल्लेखकियागयाहै

, आ

मने

सामनेबातचीतहोनेकाउल्लेखनहींकियागयाहै। यह सहीहैकिफोनकेमाध्यमसे

आरोपीऔरप्रार्थीकेमध्यबातहुईअथवानहींइसकेसत्यापनहेतुमेरेद्वाराउक्त

”

वार्ताकेसंबंधमेंकोईकॉलडिटेलप्राप्तनहींकियागयाथा।

Further in para 20, he stated that, “……..

यह सहीहैकिमैंने

आरोपीऔरप्रार्थीदोनोंमोबाईलफोनोंकासीमनंबरएवंइ

.ए

म

.इ.

आईनंबरनहीं

”

लियाहै।

In para 21, he stated that, “

यह सहीहैकिमैंनेबातचीतकेरिकार्डिंगके

संबंधमेंउक्तवार्ताआरोपीऔरप्रार्थीकेआवाजोंमेंहीहैं

,

इसबाबत्कोईपरीक्षण

नहींकरवायाथा। यह सहीहैकिमात्रप्रार्थीकेयहबतानेपरकिउसकीऔरआरोपी

कीवार्ताहै

,

मैंनेउसकेबातकोमानलियाथा। यह सहीहैकियदिप्रार्थीकेद्वारा

12

आरोपीकेअतिरिक्तकिसीअन्य व्यक्तिसेरिश्वतकेलेनदेनकेसंबंधमेंबातकरउसे

”

रिकार्डकियाहोतोमैंनहींबतासकता।

In para 22, he stated that, “

यह सहीहैकिमैंनेटेबलकेउपरसेपैसे

”

जप्तकियाथा।

14.Manmohan Giri (D.W.-1), the defence witness, deposed that at

the relevant time he was posted as Assistant Grade-III in the office

of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon. He stated

that the part-final sanction order for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-

pertaining to the complainant, Vinod Kumar Bagde, RHO,

Community Health Centre, Dongargarh, dated 27.01.2014, was

received by him in the outward branch. According to him, on the

same day, i.e., 27.01.2014, he delivered the said sanction order to

the complainant and obtained his acknowledgment thereof. He

further deposed that the relevant outward register had been

seized during the course of investigation. As per his testimony, the

acknowledgment evidencing delivery of the sanction order was

recorded at page No. 63 of the said register, which was exhibited

as Ex.D/2. He identified the signature of the complainant, Vinod

Kumar Bagde, appearing at portion ‘A’ of Ex.D/2 as

acknowledgment of receipt of the sanction order.

He further stated that upon receipt of the sanction order, the

amount covered thereunder was payable from the office/place

where the complainant was posted and, therefore, no further

13

action was required from the office of the Chief Medical and

Health Officer for disbursement of the sanctioned amount.

15.A close scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses

reveals that there is no direct evidence on record establishing the

alleged demand of illegal gratification by the accused. The

complainant deposed that the accused had demanded money

from him over a telephonic conversation; however, it is noteworthy

that neither the mobile phone of the complainant nor that of the

accused was seized or examined during the course of

investigation.

16.The complainant stated that he had recorded the conversation

with the accused in a voice recorder on 27.01.2014. However, the

testimony of Manmohan Giri (D.W.-1) indicates that the

complainant had already received the part-final sanction order on

the very same date, i.e., 27.01.2014, thereby creating a material

circumstance requiring consideration.

17.Budheshwar Sai Painkra (P.W.-11), the Investigating Officer, in

his cross-examination, admitted that he had accepted the

complainant's version regarding the alleged conversation with the

accused solely on the basis of the complainant's statement. He

further conceded that he was unable to state whether the

conversation recorded by the complainant in the voice recorder

was with the accused or with some other person in relation to the

alleged demand of bribe.

14

18.Upendra Datt Bhargava (P.W.-6), the panch witness, also

admitted in his testimony that he was not present at the time when

the alleged conversation took place between the complainant and

the accused. Consequently, his evidence does not provide any

direct corroboration regarding the alleged demand of illegal

gratification.

19.In the matter of Krishan Chander (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court

held in paras 29 and 34 as under:-

“29. As far as the evidence of Panch witness- Anoop Kumar

Verma (PW-6) is concerned, in his examination-in-chief, he

stated thus:

"...Thereafter, the complainant and the accused walked for

15-20 steps and had some talk with the complainant and

the complain-ant took out those GC notes from his pocket

and gave in the right hand of accused which he kept in the

left pocket of his shirt…"

Anoop Kumar Verma (PW-6) in his examination-in-

chief has not deposed as to the exact conversation that

took place between the appellant and the complainant- Jai

Bhagwan at the time when he had approached him to give

bribe money. He has simply mentioned about “some talk"

had taken place between them but has failed to bring to

light the factum of demand of bribe money by the appellant

from the complainant- Jai Bhagwan. Thus, it is amply clear

that panch witness- Anoop Kumar Verma did not hear the

15

conversation between the appellant and the complainant-

Jai Bhagwan. Therefore, there was no occasion for both the

courts below to reach the conclusion that the appellant

demanded any bribe from the complainant-Jai Bhagwan.

30. XXXX XXXX XXXX

31. XXXX XXXX XXXX

32. XXXX XXXX XXXX

33. XXXX XXXX XXXX

34. It is well settled position of law that the demand for the

bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has

been held by this Court in the case of B. Jayaraj (AIR 2014

SC (Supp) 1837) (supra), A. Subair (2009 AIR SCW 3994)

(supra) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) upon which

reliance is rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on

behalf of the appellant. The relevant paragraph 7 from B.

Jayaraj case (supra) reads thus:

“7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it

is a settled position in law that demand of illegal

gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence

and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the

offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all

reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted

the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position

16

has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this

Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the

decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. (AIR 2011 SC

608) and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI." (AIR 2009 SC 2022)

(Emphasis

supplied)

In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) (AIR 2015

SC 3549, Paras 19, 20, 21 & 22), it was held by this Court

as under:

"21. In State of Kerala and another v. C.P Rao (AIR 2012

SC (Supp) 393), this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum,

vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by

itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and

in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or

to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the

money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be

sustained.

22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the

imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act,

it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj (AIR 2014 SC (Supp)

1837) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and

recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof

of demand would not establish an offence under Sections

7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been

propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand

17

for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means

or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any

valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to

be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to

be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating

mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the

Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a

presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that

while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7

and not to those under Section 13(1)(d) (i)&(ii) of the Act,

it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance illegal

gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act.

Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was

emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of

demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of

proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section

20 of the Act would also not arise.

23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the

gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)

(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the

charge therefore, 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

18

would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the

person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of

the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."

(Emphasis

supplied)

20.In the matter of Sanjaysingh Ramrao Chavan (supra), Hon’ble

Apex Court held in para 16 as under:-

“16. It is to be noted that in the first complaint filed by the

second respondent, the de facto complainant, there is no

allegation for any demand for bribe by the appellant. The

allegation of demand is specifically against Accused 2 only.

That allegation against the appellant is raised only

subsequently. Be that as it may, the only basis for supporting

the allegation is the conversation that is said to be recorded

by the voice recorder. The Directorate of Forensic Science

Laboratories, State of Maharashtra vide Annexure B Report

has stated that the conversation is not in audible condition

and, hence, the same is not considered for spectrographic

analysis. The learned counsel for the respondents submit

that the conversation has been translated and the same has

been verified by the panch witnesses. Admittedly, the panch

witnesses have not heard the conversation, since they were

not present in the room. As the voice recorder is itself not

subjected to analysis, there is no point in placing reliance on

the translated version. Without source, there is no

authenticity for the translation. Source and authenticity are

19

the two key factors for an electronic evidence, as held by this

Court in Anvar PV. v. P.K. Basheer.”

21.In the matter of Shiv Kumar (supra), this Court held in paras

23, 24 and 26 as under:-

“23. In the case of V. Venkata Subbarao Vs. State

represented by Inspector of police, A.P.

6

, it has been held

that in order to prove the charges Under Section 7, 13(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is obligatory on

the part of the prosecution to prove that the accused made

any demand of bribe and the statutory presumption under

Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that the

accused has accepted the money towards bribe cannot be

accepted unless and until it is proved that there was some

motive or reward for which the demand of bribe was made

and the demand of bribe is proved. In the case of T.

Subramanian Vs. State of T.N

7

., it has been held that mere

proof of receipt of money by the accused in absence of

proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal

gratification would not be sufficient to establish the guilt of

the accused. In the case of Sita Ram Vs. State of

Rajasthan

8

, the Supreme Court held that when story of

demand of bribe by the accused appellant from the

complainant was not proved and even story of demand of

money by the complainant was not established beyond

reasonable doubt, the rule of presumption that the money

20

was accepted as bribe could not be resorted in order to

convict the accused. In the case of Suraj Mal Vs. State

(Delhi Administration)

9

, it has been held that in case of

bribery, mere recovery of money divorced from the

circumstances under which it is paid, it would not sufficient

to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in

the case, is not reliable. In Jagdish Chandra Makhija Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh

10

, it has been held that in a trap

case when initial part of the story of demand and offer is

found to be untrustworthy, testimony of the complainant

cannot be accepted.

24. In the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala

11

, it has

been held that:

"The legal position is no more res integra that

primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of

the Act is proof of a demand or request of valuable thing

or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other

words, in the absence of proof of demand or request

from the public servant for a valuable thing of pecuniary

advantage, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) cannot

be held to be established."

"Mere recovery of currency notes (Rs.20/- and

Rs.5/-) denomination, in the facts of the present case, by

itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of

the demand and acceptance of bribe. When the

21

evidence produced by the prosecution has neither

quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest

conviction upon such evidence."

26. The analysis of evidence on record, as above, in the

circumstances of the case, renders the entire story of the

prosecution with regard to demand is highly doubtful and

it would be not safe to convict the appellant without

independent corroboration of demand of bribe.”

22.In the light of above, in the present case also, it is evident

that the prosecution failed to collect any voice sample of the

accused for comparison with the alleged recorded conversation.

Furthermore, neither the mobile phone numbers nor the mobile

handsets of the complainant and the accused were seized or

subjected to investigation. The Investigating Officer, Budheshwar

Sai Painkra (P.W.-11), admitted during cross-examination that he

had accepted the complainant's version regarding the alleged

telephonic conversation solely on the basis of the complainant's

statement. He further conceded that he could not state whether

the conversation recorded by the complainant in the voice

recorder was with the accused or with any other person

concerning the alleged demand of illegal gratification. Further, the

prosecution has failed to establish that the accused possessed

any authority or role in sanctioning the amount in question. The

evidence on record merely proves that the accused was posted as

an Accountant. On the contrary, Manmohan Giri (D.W.-1) deposed

22

that the sanction order had already been delivered to the

complainant on 27.01.2014. Thus, the prosecution has failed to

establish any nexus between the accused and the sanction of the

amount allegedly sought to be released.

23.Ghanshyam Thakur (P.W.-1), Shivsharan Sahu (P.W.-4) and

Ram Pravesh Mishra (P.W.-7), all members of the trap party and

official witnesses, supported the prosecution case only to the

extent of the pre-trap proceedings and the recovery of tainted

currency notes from the table of the accused. However, none of

these witnesses furnished any evidence regarding the alleged

demand of illegal gratification by the accused.

24.It is pertinent to note that the complainant initially lodged a

complaint dated 25.01.2014 (Ex.P/11), wherein it was alleged that

the accused had demanded a bribe over a telephone conversation

on 24.01.2014. Subsequently, the complainant submitted another

complaint dated 29.01.2014 (Ex.P/13), stating that he had

recorded the conversation on 27.01.2014. Significantly, in

Ex.P/13, the complainant omitted to disclose that he had already

received the sanction order on 27.01.2014. This omission

constitutes a material circumstance which casts doubt upon the

veracity of the prosecution case and renders the conduct of the

complainant suspicious.

25.Although the tainted currency notes were recovered from the

table of the accused, there is no independent witness, apart from

23

the complainant himself, who has deposed that the accused

accepted or received the alleged bribe amount from the

complainant.

26.The panch witnesses as well as other prosecution witnesses

admitted the defence suggestion that the tables of other

employees were situated in close proximity to the table of the

accused. It is a settled principle of law, repeatedly affirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, that mere recovery of tainted currency is

insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of

Corruption Act unless the foundational facts regarding demand

and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved beyond

reasonable doubt.

27.In the present case, the prosecution has failed to adduce

cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to establish the essential

ingredient of demand of illegal gratification. Consequently, the

recovery of tainted currency by itself cannot give rise to a

presumption of guilt. In the absence of satisfactory proof of

demand and voluntary acceptance of the alleged bribe amount,

the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the

appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court, while

recording the impugned conviction, failed to properly appreciate

the aforesaid material inconsistencies, omissions and deficiencies

in the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, the findings recorded by

the learned Trial Court are unsustainable in law and liable to be

24

set aside.

28.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant for

the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are

hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of

all the charges levelled against him.

29.The appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the

provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the

appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms

of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of

sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the

Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six

months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of

Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of

leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall

appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

30.The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be

sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance

and necessary action.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

JUDGE

Ruchi