Pranav B Prem

The Telangana High Court has reiterated that mere recovery of bribe money, without substantive proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court set aside the conviction of a junior engineer who was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe for clearing pending bills of a contractor.

Background of the Case

The appellant, a junior engineer at the University of Hyderabad, was convicted by the Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000 from a contractor for clearing pending bills related to civil works executed by the contractor's firm. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) laid a trap, and the tainted amount was recovered from the drawer of the appellant. His hands also tested positive for phenolphthalein solution.

High Court’s Observations

Justice K. Surender noted that the recovery of tainted money from the drawer of the accused and the positive hand wash test were not sufficient to establish guilt unless the prosecution proved a prior demand for bribe. The Court observed that the bills had already been signed by the appellant and that he had no authority over their final clearance.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was held that "mere recovery of the amount divorced from the circumstances cannot form basis to convict, when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable." The Court also referred to P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P., where the Supreme Court had emphasized that "proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the absence of the same, the charge would fail." It was further held that mere acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification would not be sufficient to prove the charges.

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant argued that he had no role in the final clearance of bills, as his duties were limited to making entries in the measurement book. He pointed out that the bill in question had already been signed by him and the Assistant Engineer, and clearance of the bill was not within his purview. He further contended that all the complainant’s bills had already been cleared and that there was no conclusive proof that he had made a demand for bribe.

Regarding the recovery of tainted money from his drawer and the presence of phenolphthalein on his hands, the appellant explained that the complainant’s representative had positioned himself close to the drawer and could have dropped the money there. He further argued that during the trap proceedings, one Raghavendra Kumar entered his office, caught hold of his hands, and dragged him outside. The appellant suggested that Kumar, who was not examined as a witness, could have had trap powder on his hands, which might have transferred to him.

Court’s Findings

The High Court noted that as per the procedural framework, the final bill had already been prepared, signed by the appellant and the Assistant Engineer, and only required the complainant’s signature for clearance. The complainant himself admitted that without his signature, pass orders could not be issued. The Court found the demand for bribe improbable, given that the appellant had no further role in the process. The Court also highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case regarding the alleged phone calls made by the appellant to demand the bribe. While call records indicated a call from the appellant’s landline to a mobile number allegedly belonging to the complainant’s representative, the prosecution failed to establish that the number actually belonged to the complainant’s representative. Moreover, the prosecution’s timeline conflicted with the evidence that the appellant was present in his office at the time the alleged bribe demand was made over the phone.

Verdict

“In the background of the discussion above, it emerges that no work was pending with the appellant as claimed by PW.1 nor any demand was made. The demand of bribe for clearing the bill for Rs.45,347/- is highly improbable. Hence, even if there was recovery in the present case, the same cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the light of the above two Judgments. Accordingly, the appellant is extended benefit of doubt and the appeal is allowed.” With these observations, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant’s conviction, emphasizing that a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be sustained merely on the basis of recovery of bribe money in the absence of evidence proving a demand for illegal gratification.

Cause Title: Sri V.V.V.N.S.S.Prasad vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 417 OF 2014

Date: January-29-2025

Bench: Justice K. Surender 

[Read/Download order]