Mere Recovery of Tainted Notes Cannot Sustain PC Act Conviction

Ajit Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand – Criminal Appeal No. 4573 of 2026 – 2026 INSC 1084 – October 05, 2026 – Ujjal Bhuyan, J. & Atul S. Chandurkar, J.

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/29811/29811_2026_14_1501_74921_Judgement_05-Oct-2026.pdf

Appellant and impugned order challenged

The appellant, Ajit Kumar, who served as an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella, challenged the judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 135 of 2021, which had affirmed his conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, originally passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Vigilance Case No. 17 of 2010. [paras 1, 2, 4.1]

Factual matrix

The complainant was appointed as an orderly in a government high school in Sirum on 01.02.2010, and when his salary remained unpaid, he approached the District Education Office where the appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000 for releasing the funds. Unwilling to pay, the complainant applied to the Vigilance Bureau on 19.04.2010, leading to a delayed verification report on 19.05.2010 and a subsequent trap operation on 20.05.2010 involving chemically treated currency notes. During the operation, the complainant and the appellant rode a motorcycle to the appellant’s rented residence and returned to the office, where the vigilance team apprehended the appellant and subsequently recovered Rs. 5,000 from under a pillow at his residence, with the appellant’s hand-wash turning pink; however, prosecution witnesses gave conflicting accounts regarding where the handover and arrest occurred, none of the trap witnesses saw the demand or acceptance of money, and independent witnesses admitted to signing seizure papers solely upon police instructions without witnessing any recovery. [paras 4.1, 4.2, 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]

Other courts verdicts

Vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2021, the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to undergo four years of rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 for each offence, with both sentences running concurrently. Subsequently, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dismissed the appellant’s criminal appeal on 21.07.2022 and confirmed the trial court’s conviction and sentence in full. [paras 1, 2, 4.6, 4.7]

Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent

The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt—which is the sine qua non for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act—by relying solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant when the transaction allegedly occurred inside his residence without any shadow or independent witness, arguing that mere recovery of tainted notes and a belated positive phenolphthalein test cannot prove guilt. Conversely, the respondent State argued that a wholesome reading of the evidence clearly proved both demand and acceptance, maintaining that minor discrepancies could not dislodge the concurrent findings of guilt and asserting that the appeal had become purely academic since the appellant had already served out his sentence. [paras 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6, 6.1, 6.2]

Ratio Decidendi

Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue is a sine qua non to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from an accused public servant, in the absence of direct or corroborated evidence establishing a prior demand and conscious acceptance, is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. [paras 19, 20, 21, 21.1, 22, 23, 24]

Directions issued

None

Important paragraphs

PW-2 Shyamlal Champiya is the Police Inspector who was deputed by the SP, Vigilance Bureau to verify the complaint and to submit report. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on verification of the complaint, he found the allegations to be true and, therefore, submitted the verification report to the SP. He stated that on 20.05.2010, in the morning hours, members of the trap team and the complainant had reached the Vigilance Office at Ranchi where a physical demonstration was presented before the members of the trap team. On completion of the pre-trap formalities, the trap team went to the office of the District Education Officer at Saraikella. PW-1 was sent to meet the accused. Accused alongwith PW-1 went to his residence and returned back to office after 10-15 minutes. It was then that the complainant PW-1 disclosed that the accused had kept the bribe money at his residence. Upon this, the police personnel from the Vigilance Bureau arrested the accused and brought him to his residence. During the course of the search, Rs. 5,000.00 was recovered from under his bed. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the notes memorandum prepared by the vigilance team. Thereafter, accused was brought to his office and when both his hands were dipped into the solution, it turned pink.

9.1. He stated in his cross-examination that on 22.04.2010, around noon, he had accompanied the complainant to the office of the District Education Officer. Only the complainant PW-1 talked with the accused. He had heard the conversation between PW-1 and the accused on the basis of which he submitted his verification report. Interestingly, PW-2 stated that he had submitted the verification report late because the complainant had no money.

1. Police Inspector Shashi Bhushan was a member of the trap team. He is PW-3. In his evidence-in-chief, he stated that on 19.05.2010, he was posted as Police Inspector at the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. On that day, DSP Ramashish Raut (PW-11) constituted a trap team on the orders of the SP. PW-3 was also made a member of the trap team. On the next day i.e. on 20.05.2010 at 05:00 am, members of the trap team assembled in the office of the Vigilance Bureau. There, complainant PW-1 was also present. One currency note of Rs. 1000.00 denomination and eight currency notes of Rs. 500.00 denomination were collected for the trap operation. Chemical reaction of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein on the currency notes was demonstrated. The currency notes were thereafter handed over to PW-1 with the instruction that he would pay the said amount on demand to the accused. The trap team thereafter proceeded and reached the office of District Education Officer at Saraikella at about 11:30 am. From the office, complainant PW-1 alongwith accused Ajit Kumar went outside on motorcycle. After they returned back, PW-1 disclosed that he had given the bribe amount to the accused at his residence. Trap team then arrested the accused Ajit Kumar and took him to his residence. In the residence, Ajit Kumar took out the currency notes from below his pillow. Those tallied with the memorandum of currency notes prepared previously. He stated that the hands of the accused were ‘washed’ in the solution kept separately in two glass containers. Thereafter, accused Ajit Kumar was brought to his office where he handed over the documents relating to salary of the complainant PW-1.

10.1. In his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that accused was staying in a rented accommodation. Distance between the office and the residence of the accused was about 1/2 kilometer. Bed, bed-sheet and pillow were not seized from the residence of the accused. Hands of the accused were ‘washed’ in his residence. Accused was thereafter brought to the office from his residence where he was arrested.

12.1. He admitted in his cross-examination that complainant PW-1 did not hand over the bribe money to the accused before him. Though accused was caught in his office but no money was recovered from him. He could not remember as to who searched the accused. The seizure list did not have his signatures.

1. Assistant Sub-Inspector Devendra Nath Upadhayay, PW-6, was a member of the trap team. According to him, complainant Durgapad Singh Munda came out along with the accused from the office of the accused and both of them went from there on a motorcycle. Members of the trap team followed them in a vehicle but the motorcycle went ahead whereafter they (complainant and the accused) returned back to the office. After some time, complainant disclosed to PW-2 that he had given bribe to the accused. After they got hold of the accused, they took him to his residence where the accused brought out the bribe money from his bed kept under the pillow. Fingers of both hands of the accused were dipped into the solution which turned pink.
2. PW-8 Chandeshwar Mahato was posted as the Head Clerk in the office of the District Education Officer at Saraikella. Though he accompanied the vigilance team to the residence of the accused, he remained outside the house when the vigilance team went inside.

14.1. In his cross-examination, he stated that nothing was shown to him. He had no knowledge as to which thing was brought from where. He had just put his signature on some documents on the direction of the vigilance officials. Vigilance officials told him that money was recovered from the house of the accused.

1. Similar is the evidence of PW-9 Chandan Kumar Patnayak, who was a Clerk in the office of the District Education Officer, Saraikella. In his cross-examination, he stated that vigilance officials told him to put his signature on certain papers whereafter he put his signature. He was not aware of the contents of such papers. He came out of his office due to the chaos when vigilance officials caught hold of the accused. He could not say as to what happened in the house of the accused. He did not see any money. It was on the direction of the police that he deposed that currency notes were recovered from the residence of the accused.
2. According to PW-10, Ajit Baxrai, who was the Assistant Director of Employment and was part of the trap team, after PW-1 and the accused came back to the office from the residence of the accused on motorcycle, PW-1 disclosed that he had given bribe of Rs. 5,000.00 to the accused whereafter accused was arrested. Accused admitted that he had accepted bribe from PW-1. It was then that members of the trap team took the accused to his residence.

16.1. He admitted in his cross-examination that transaction of money was not witnessed by him. Money was not recovered from the possession of the accused in the office. The house of the accused was situated at a distance of about one and a half kilometer from the office.

Analysis of the Supreme Court on the facts

1. From an analysis of the evidence as extracted above, what transpires is that PW-1 had approached the vigilance office on 19.04.2010 and lodged the complaint regarding demand of bribe by the accused. PW-2 was assigned the task of verifying the complaint and to submit report. It appears that he had accompanied PW-1 on 22.04.2010 to the office of the accused where he is stated to have overheard the demand of bribe made by the accused to PW-1. However, there was considerable delay in the submission of his report, which was submitted on 19.05.2010. He explained the delay by saying that PW-1 could not immediately arrange the bribe money. But that had nothing to do with the truthfulness or otherwise of the complaint. Be that as it may, the trap operation was carried out on 20.05.2010 but there are inconsistencies galore in the narration of facts. Without getting bogged down on the inconsistencies, what is startling to note is that on 20.05.2010 when PW-1 offered to pay the bribe money to the accused in his office, both of them left for the residence of the accused where it is alleged that the bribe money was given to the accused. According to the version of some witnesses, the accused was apprehended in his residence; on the other hand, as per the version of some other witnesses, after PW-1 and accused came back to the office from the residence and on PW-1 signaling to the vigilance team that he had paid the bribe money, the vigilance team barged into the office of the accused and apprehended him. As per this version, accused was then taken to his residence from where the bribe money was allegedly recovered from under his pillow. But what is uniformly common is that none of the witnesses have seen the accused demanding bribe or PW-1 handing over the bribe money to the accused. There is no evidence in this regard. It is only the uncorroborated testimony of PW-1. A couple of witnesses have even gone to the extent of saying that they had signed the seizure list on being directed to do so by the vigilance officials.

PC Act judgment analysis

1. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. State of A.P., this Court held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. In the absence thereof, the charge would fail. Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of alleged bribe money from the accused would not be sufficient for a conviction under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC Act. This Court held thus:
2. 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, unmistakably the charge therefor, 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 would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.
3. In a recent decision of this Court in Jaswinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, authored by one of us (Ujjal Bhuyan, J.), all the above decisions have been analysed and reiterated. In the facts of that case, it has been held as under:
4. Under such circumstances, it is evident that neither the demand nor acceptance of the bribe can be said to have been proved. As a matter of fact, no one saw the appellant making the demand for bribe and no one saw PW-1 handing over the bribe money to the appellant nor acceptance of the same by the appellant. The fact situation of this case, thus, is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and in Aman Bhatia.
5. In so far the present case is concerned, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused as a fact in issue could not be proved by the prosecution.

Conclusion

• That being the position, it cannot be said that the charge against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act was proved, not to speak of beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, we set aside the judgment and order dated 27.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge in Vigilance Case No. 17 of 2010 as well as the judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 135 of 2021. It is declared that the charge framed against the appellant Ajit Kumar under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act could not be proved. Ajit Kumar is thus cleared of the said charges.

Resources

• Judgments Cited
  • P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152: Held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, and mere recovery of money divorced from proof of demand is insufficient for conviction.
  • Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731: Declared that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue is a sine qua non to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
  • Aman Bhatia Vs. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013: Concluded that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant without proof of demand is insufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
  • Jaswinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1952: Reiterated that where no witness saw the accused demanding, receiving, or accepting the bribe money, neither demand nor acceptance is proved.
• Acts and Sections Involved
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
    • Section 7: Offence relating to public servant being bribed.
    • Section 13(1)(d): Criminal misconduct by a public servant by obtaining valuable thing or pecuniary advantage through corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position.
    • Section 13(2): Punishment for criminal misconduct by a public servant.