"Prosecution Failed to Prove Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Beyond Reasonable Doubt": Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of an Enforcement Inspector and an Office Assistant in a bribery case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, acquitting them on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was a demand and acceptance of bribe. The court held that inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, contradictions in witness testimonies, and a lack of conclusive evidence undermined the validity of the conviction.
The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined the evidence presented before the trial court and the High Court, concluding that the prosecution’s case did not meet the threshold of proof required in criminal trials. The court recorded that the legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be applied in the absence of clear proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
The case arose from a complaint lodged with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against two government officials in the District Supply Office at Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. The complainant, a trader, had applied for a Rajasthan Trade Authority (RTAL) license to deal in food grains and edible oils. As part of the licensing process, an inspection was conducted at his shop by the second accused, Enforcement Inspector Madan Lal. The complainant alleged that during the inspection, the inspector demanded a bribe to expedite the issuance of the license.
The following day, the complainant visited the District Supply Office, where the first accused, Office Assistant Narendra Kumar, allegedly reiterated the demand and specified that a sum of ₹500 was required—₹300 for himself and ₹200 for the second accused. The complainant, unwilling to pay the bribe, approached the ACB, which laid a trap on June 30, 1994.
According to the prosecution, the complainant met the accused at the office and handed over ₹400 as bribe money, after which the ACB team entered the premises and recovered the currency notes. The hands and clothing of the accused were subjected to a chemical test, which allegedly confirmed the presence of the tainted currency. The prosecution relied on this evidence to establish both demand and acceptance of the bribe.
The trial court convicted both accused under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and imposing a fine of ₹1,000 each. An additional sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment was imposed under Section 7, along with a further fine of ₹1,000. The High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had successfully proved the essential ingredients of the offense—demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe amount. The judgment states:
"On an examination of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team of the ACB. In that circumstance, there is no question of a presumption under Section 20 arising in this case."
The court noted inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, particularly regarding the amount allegedly demanded by the accused. The judgment records:
"There are glaring inconsistencies insofar as the amount of money demanded. Further, in cross-examination, PW 5 again admitted that he does not remember the exact amount demanded by the 2nd accused. Hence, in the deposition before Court, the complainant was not able to speak of the exact amount demanded by the 1st accused or the 2nd accused, contrary to his assertion made in the complaint."
The court also examined the credibility of independent witnesses who were part of the trap proceedings. It recorded that key witnesses had turned hostile and failed to confirm that they had seen the accused accepting the bribe. The judgment states:
"PW 1 categorically stated in cross-examination by the Prosecutor, after being declared hostile, that he did not see the physical transaction of bribe. PW 2, the other independent witness, also stated that he went into the scene of crime only after the complainant signalled. He also, hence, was not a witness to the handing over of the money."
Regarding the recovery of money, the court noted that independent witnesses testified that the currency notes were found scattered on the floor rather than being recovered from the accused. The judgment states:
"The independent witnesses who accompanied the trap team turned hostile. According to PW 1, two currency notes of ₹100 were lying scattered on the ground which he picked up on demand made by the officers of the ACB. He also deposed that the 1st accused had made a statement that the currency notes fell down from the hands of the complainant."
The court further recorded contradictions in the testimony of the ACB officers. It observed that while prosecution witnesses claimed the accused had placed the money in their pockets, independent witnesses denied witnessing such a transaction. The judgment states:
"None of the officers spoke of any of the accused having taken out the notes and thrown it on the floor."
The court noted that the legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises only when demand and acceptance are conclusively proved. The judgment states:
"The prosecution must establish the foundational facts before the presumption can operate. In the absence of such proof, the presumption under Section 20 does not arise."
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The judgment states:
"The conviction and sentence of the accused as brought out by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, hence, is set aside."
The court ordered the acquittal of the accused, stating:
"Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed, acquitting the accused for reason of the prosecution having not established and proved the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
It also directed that any bail bonds executed by the accused be cancelled. The judgment states:
"The bail bonds, if any executed by the accused, in these cases, shall stand cancelled."
Case Title: Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 340
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 6895 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
