Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO.     696                OF 2014 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.2085 of 2012)

B. JAYARAJ ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated  25.04.2011  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  

Pradesh  affirming  the  order  of  conviction  passed  by  the  

Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City Civil Court  

Hyderabad, whereby the accused appellant has been found  

guilty of commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13  

1

Page 2

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

Corruption  Act,  1988  (for  short  “the  Act”).   The  accused  

appellant  has  been  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for one year for each of the offences and also  

to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.1000/-  in  default  to  suffer  simple  

imprisonment for three months more.

3. According  to  the  prosecution,  the  accused  appellant  

was,  at  the  relevant  point  of  time,  working  as  a  Mandal  

Revenue officer  (MRO) in  the Ranga Reddy District  of  the  

State  of  Andhra  Pradesh.   The  complainant  K.Venkataiah  

(PW-2)  had  a  fair  price  shop  in  Dadupally  village.   On  

8.11.1995,  the  complainant,  it  is  alleged,  had approached  

the accused appellant for release of essential commodities  

against  his  shop for  the  month  of  November,  1995.   The  

accused  appellant,  it  is  claimed,  demanded  a  bribe  of  

Rs.250/- to issue the release order.  As the complainant was  

not willing to pay the said amount, he had approached listed  

witness  No.9  K.Narsinga  Rao,  (since  deceased)  Deputy  

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Hyderabad on 9.11.1995 and  

submitted  a  written  complaint  (Exbt.P-11)  before  him.  

2

Page 3

According  to  the  prosecution,  LW-9  after  verifying  the  

contents  of  the  complaint  registered  a  case  and  issued  

Exhibit P-12 (FIR).  LW-9 directed the complainant to come  

with the bribe amount on 13.11.995.  It is also alleged that  

LW-9 summoned PW-1, S. Hanuma Reddy, Deputy Director of  

Insurance to act as a panch witness and explained the details  

of the complaint (Exbt.P-11) to him.   Furthermore, according  

to the prosecution, LW-9 got the currency notes treated with  

phenolphthalein  powder  and  also  explained  to  PW-1  the  

significance  of  the  sodium  carbonate  solution  test.   The  

details  of  the  trap  that  was planned  was explained  to  all  

concerned including the complainant.  Accordingly, the plan  

was put into execution and on receipt of the pre-arranged  

signal to the trap laying officer, the police party headed by  

LW-9, which also included PW-5, rushed into the office of the  

accused appellant.  Thereafter, according to the prosecution,  

the  sodium carbonate  solution test  was conducted on the  

right hand fingers of the accused as well as the right shirt  

pocket.    Both  tests  proved  to  be  positive.   The  tainted  

currency notes were recovered from the possession of the  

accused.    

3

Page 4

4. Chargesheet was filed against the accused-appellant on  

completion  of  investigation.   Upon  grant  of  sanction  for  

prosecution, cognizance of the offences alleged was taken  

and charges were framed to which the accused pleaded not  

guilty.  In the course of the trial 5 witnesses were examined  

on behalf of the prosecution and 12 documents (Exbt. P-1 to  

P-12)  besides  10  material  objects  (MOs  1  to  10)  were  

exhibited.  The plea of the accused was that on the date of  

the trap, PW-2, the complainant had put the currency notes  

in his shirt pocket with a request to have the same deposited  

in  the  bank  as  fee  for  renewal  of  the  licence  of  the  

complainant.  It was at this point of time that the police party  

had come and seized  the  currency notes  after  taking the  

same from his pocket.

5. We have heard Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned counsel  

for  the appellant  and Mr.  Mayur  R.  Shah,  learned counsel  

appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

6. PW-2, the complainant, did not support the prosecution  

case.   He disowned making the complaint  (Exbt.P-11) and  

had stated in his deposition that the amount of Rs.250/- was  

4

Page 5

paid by him to the accused with a request that the same may  

be deposited  with  the  bank as  fee  for  the  renewal  of  his  

licence.   He was, therefore, declared hostile.  However, PW-1  

(panch witness) had testified that after being summoned by  

LW-9,     K.  Narsinga Rao,  on 13.11.1995, the contents of  

Exhibit P-11 (complaint) filed by the complainant PW-2 were  

explained to him in the  presence of the complainant  who  

acknowledged  the  fact  that  the  accused  appellant  had  

demanded  a  sum  of  Rs.250/-  as  illegal  gratification  for  

release of the PDS items.  It is on the aforesaid basis that the  

liability  of  the  accused-appellant  for  commission  of  the  

offences alleged was held to be proved, notwithstanding the  

fact  that  in  his  evidence  the  complainant  PW-2  had  not  

supported the prosecution case.  In doing so, the learned trial  

court as well as the High Court also relied on the provisions  

of  Section  20  of  the  Act  to  draw a  legal  presumption  as  

regards the motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do  

any official act after finding acceptance of illegal gratification  

by the accused-appellant.  

5

Page 6

7. In so far 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  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 Vs. State of A.P.1 and C.M. Girish Babu Vs.  

C.B.I.2

8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the  

prosecution  case  in  so  far  as  demand  by  the  accused  is  

concerned.   The prosecution has  not  examined any  other  

witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly  

handed over to the accused by the complainant,  to prove  

that  the same was pursuant to any demand made by the  

accused.  When the complainant himself had disowned what  

he had stated in the initial complaint (Exbt.P-11) before LW-

1 (2010) 15 SCC 1 2 (2009) 3 SCC 779

6

Page 7

9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused  

had  made  any  demand,  the  evidence  of  PW-1  and   the  

contents   of  Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to  

the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the  

demand allegedly made by the accused.  We are, therefore,  

inclined to hold that the learned trial  court as well as the  

High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to  

be made by the accused as proved.  The only other material  

available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from  

the possession of the accused.  In fact  such possession is  

admitted  by  the  accused  himself.   Mere  possession  and  

recovery  of  the  currency  notes  from the  accused  without  

proof  of  demand  will  not  bring  home  the  offence  under  

Section 7.  The above also will be conclusive in so far as the  

offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)  is concerned as in the  

absence of any proof of demand 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 established.

7

Page 8

9. In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn  

under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption  

can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not  

the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act.  In any  

event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification  

that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act  

that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to  

do any official act.  Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification  

can follow only if there is proof of demand.  As the same is  

lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of  

which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn  

are wholly absent.

10. For  the  aforesaid  reasons,  we  cannot  sustain  the  

conviction of the appellant either under Section 7 or under  

13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.  Accordingly,  

the conviction and the sentences imposed on the accused-

appellant by the trial court as well as the High Court by order  

dated 25.4.2011 are set aside and the appeal is allowed.

...…………………………CJI. [P. SATHASIVAM]

8

Page 9

.........………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

…..........……………………J. [N.V. RAMANA]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 28, 2014.

9