Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja upheld the acquittal of a Block Forest Officer in a corruption case under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, noting inconsistencies in the testimonies and lack of independent corroboration. Emphasizing that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient without proof of demand, the Bench concluded that the trial court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused.

The matter originated from allegations that the accused, a Block Forest Officer posted at Khodari Majari in 2010, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 3,000 from the complainant in exchange for providing permission and affixing an export hammer on timber. The complainant, Shabir Ali, approached the vigilance authorities after being called to the accused’s office to pay the alleged bribe. Inspector Madan Lal of the vigilance team recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered an FIR, and organized a trap operation.

Also Read: Supreme Court Prohibits Photography, Videography in High Security Zone Following Bar’s Objections to ‘Reels’ and Selfies

During the pre-trap proceedings, the complainant produced one currency note of Rs.1,000 and four notes of Rs.500, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder, and their serial numbers were recorded. The complainant, accompanied by shadow witness Atik Mohammad, went to a tea stall near the accused’s office. There, the accused allegedly demanded and received Rs.3,000 from the complainant and handed over a permission letter. On signal from the shadow witness, the vigilance team apprehended the accused, tested his hands and shirt pocket for traces of the chemical, and recovered the tainted notes, which matched the pre-recorded serial numbers. The investigation followed, culminating in the filing of a charge sheet.

The trial court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, including the complainant and the shadow witness. Independent witnesses PW-3 Surat Singh and PW-4 Kedar Singh, however, did not support the prosecution’s version, stating that their signatures had been obtained on documents at the Rest House without witnessing any trap proceedings. The accused denied the allegations, claimed false implication, and examined one defense witness. Ultimately, the trial court acquitted him on 09.09.2013, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The State then preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The State argued before the High Court that the trial court’s decision was perverse, based on conjectures, and failed to properly appreciate the evidence showing demand and acceptance of bribe. The defense countered that contradictions in the prosecution evidence and lack of independent corroboration justified acquittal.

The Court recorded: “It is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of the bribe money by itself cannot bring home the charge… in the absence of any evidence to prove demand of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the bribe money.”

Relying on multiple Supreme Court decisions, the Court noted the consistent requirement of proving demand as sine qua non. In B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, the Apex Court had held: “Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7.” Similarly, in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police (2015) 10 SCC 152, it was stated: “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… would be fatal.”

The Court observed: “The shadow witness, i.e. PW-2, was not only having acquaintance with the complainant, but he was close relative of the complainant and accomplice of the complainant in a timber smuggling case, as such he was also an interested witness.” Independent witnesses did not corroborate the trap proceedings, as they denied witnessing any such events.

It was recorded: “PW-7 Shri Mohan Singh… deposed that after inspecting the spot he found that Shri Ram Lal had cut three mango trees from his land… Thus, from the testimony of PW-7 it is clear that Shri Ram Lal had actually cut three mango trees from his land.” Consequently, the allegation that the accused facilitated illegal timber felling could not be established.

The Court concluded: “There is no legally admissible evidence of demand and acceptance. The recovery of the bribe money from the possession of the accused is also tainted with doubt, as the alleged independent witnesses did not support the prosecution story.” It reiterated the necessity of corroboration of a complainant’s testimony, citing Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 4 SCC 526, where the Supreme Court held that a complainant cannot be placed on a better footing than an accomplice.

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court | Promotion Cannot Be Withheld on Pending Criminal Case Without Chargesheet or Framing of Charges

The Court stated: “Therefore, in view of my aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. For all the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of acquittal, dated 09.09.2013, passed by learned Special Judge Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Corruption Case No. 16-CC/7 of 2012, is upheld.”

“The bail bonds executed shall stand cancelled. The appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, before the trial Court within a period of four weeks, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.

Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hari Saran
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:31442
Case Number: Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2014
Bench: Justice Sushil Kukreja