The Supreme Court has acquitted two public servants in a nearly three-decade-old bribery case, holding that mere recovery of a currency note from an accused cannot sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act when the prosecution fails to establish the foundational fact of demand beyond reasonable doubt.
The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar found the prosecution sanction against one of the accused invalid because it had been granted by an authority that was not competent to remove him from service.
The case arose from an Anti-Corruption Bureau trap concerning an alleged demand of ₹120 for issuance of an Income Certificate. The prosecution case was that ₹100 was allegedly intended for the Talati-cum-Mantri and ₹20 for a Peon working with the Gram Panchayat. During the trap, however, only ₹20 was ultimately handed over to the Peon, while no amount was recovered from the Talati-cum-Mantri.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The complainant, who was pursuing his education, required an Income Certificate to obtain certain concessions. He approached the Mamlatdar on February 6, 1996, and his application was subsequently forwarded to the Talati-cum-Mantri of Village Bechri.
According to the prosecution, on February 7, 1996, the Talati-cum-Mantri allegedly demanded ₹120 from the complainant, stating that ₹100 was to be paid to him and ₹20 to the Peon. The complainant returned without making the payment. On February 14, he again approached the official and was allegedly asked to bring a copy of his father’s Income Certificate along with ₹120.
On February 19, 1996, the complainant met the Talati-cum-Mantri near a bus stand and supplied his father’s Income Certificate. He then approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, stating that he did not wish to pay the demanded amount. The Bureau accepted the complaint and arranged a trap operation.
The complainant subsequently visited the office along with the raiding party. The prosecution alleged that after receiving the Income Certificate, the complainant handed over a ₹20 note to the Peon, who placed it in his pocket. A pre-determined signal was then given and the raiding party arrived. An offence was registered and the investigation followed.
The trial court concluded that the Talati-cum-Mantri was a public servant and that the Peon was also a public servant. It found the prosecution sanction valid and held that the demand of the bribe amount was proved against the Talati-cum-Mantri.
However, the trial court specifically found that the demand by the Peon had not been established. It also held that the prosecution failed to prove a criminal conspiracy between the two accused. Despite these findings, both accused were convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Gujarat High Court subsequently upheld their convictions. The State’s appeal seeking enhancement of sentence was dismissed, particularly after noting that the accused had already been dismissed from service. The matter thereafter reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court first examined the most fundamental element of the prosecution case — whether there was a legally sufficient and reliable demand for illegal gratification.
The Court noted that both the trial court and the High Court had accepted that the demand was proved against the Talati-cum-Mantri but not against the Peon. However, on examining the complainant’s evidence and cross-examination, the Supreme Court found significant inconsistencies.
In another criminal case filed by the complainant against the accused alleging threats, the complainant had given evidence stating that the Talati-cum-Mantri had initially demanded ₹200 and that ₹120 was subsequently settled as the final amount. However, that version was absent from his testimony in the present proceedings. The Supreme Court considered this discrepancy significant because the other deposition had been recorded within a month of the alleged demand.
The Court also found the conduct of the complainant during the trap operation to be inconsistent with the instructions allegedly given to him by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
According to the evidence, the complainant had been instructed to hand over the entire ₹120 whenever the demand was made. Yet, when the alleged demand was made, he gave only ₹20 to the Peon.
The complainant himself admitted that the Peon had not demanded any money from him. He further stated that although the Talati-cum-Mantri had allegedly told him to give ₹120 to the Peon, he understood the instruction as requiring him to give only ₹20 to the Peon.
The Supreme Court considered this conduct particularly important. The Peon was standing only one or two feet away from the Talati-cum-Mantri and therefore could have heard the conversation. Yet, when only ₹20 was handed over to him despite the alleged instruction to give ₹120, he did not question why the entire amount was not being given.
The Court held that this circumstance created serious doubt about the alleged demand itself. It also noted that there was no satisfactory explanation for the complainant’s failure to follow the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s instruction to hand over the entire amount when the demand was made.
The Supreme Court also considered a discrepancy concerning the manner in which the ₹20 currency note was allegedly handed over to the Peon. While the complainant described one manner of taking the note out of his pocket, the Panch witness gave a different account.
Although the Court acknowledged that this discrepancy could appear minor when considered in isolation, it held that the discrepancy acquired significance when examined alongside the other weaknesses in the prosecution evidence concerning demand and acceptance.
The Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Talati-cum-Mantri had demanded ₹120.
One of the key legal findings in the judgment concerned the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution argued that once the ₹20 bribe amount was recovered from the Peon, the statutory presumption under Section 20 should operate. The Supreme Court rejected this contention.
The Court reiterated that the statutory presumption can arise only after the prosecution establishes the initial demand beyond reasonable doubt. Where the foundational fact of demand itself has not been proved, mere recovery of money cannot revive or complete the prosecution case.
The Court relied upon the principle laid down by a three-Judge Bench in N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, emphasizing that recovery of tainted money, by itself, cannot substitute proof of demand.
The Court therefore found that the High Court had erred in drawing the Section 20 presumption merely because the Peon was found in possession of a currency note allegedly smeared with anthracene powder. Since the alleged demand itself remained doubtful, the presumption could not legally be invoked.
Another circumstance that weighed with the Supreme Court was the timing of the ₹20 payment.
The Court noted that the complainant gave the ₹20 to the Peon after receiving the Income Certificate from the Talati-cum-Mantri. Thus, the certificate for which the alleged bribe had supposedly been demanded had already been prepared and handed over.
The Supreme Court held that this circumstance had to be assessed along with the rest of the prosecution evidence. The fact that the certificate had already been issued before the money was handed over created another serious doubt as to whether the ₹20 payment was actually pursuant to a prior demand for illegal gratification.
The Supreme Court separately examined the challenge to the sanction for prosecuting the Talati-cum-Mantri.
Under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, previous sanction must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office.
The sanction in the present case had been granted by a Deputy District Development Officer. The evidence, however, did not establish that the Deputy District Development Officer had the authority to remove the Talati-cum-Mantri from service.
The Supreme Court noted that the District Development Officer was the competent authority to remove a Talati-cum-Mantri. The evidence further showed that the District Development Officer had authority to issue a no-objection certificate to such an employee seeking to travel abroad.
The Court therefore held that the sanction granted by the Deputy District Development Officer was invalid because the sanctioning authority was not the authority competent to remove the accused from office.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not setting aside the conviction solely on the ground of defective sanction. Even independently of the sanction issue, the prosecution evidence was found to fall substantially short of establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also took note of the fact that the prosecution had alleged a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court had acquitted both accused of the conspiracy charge after finding that the prosecution had failed to produce evidence establishing such a conspiracy. The High Court had not interfered with that finding.
The Supreme Court considered this significant because the prosecution’s case effectively rested on an alleged demand by the Talati-cum-Mantri and receipt of ₹20 by the Peon. Yet the demand against the Peon itself had not been established, and the Talati-cum-Mantri was not found in possession of any bribe amount.
The Supreme Court held that once the alleged demand by the Talati-cum-Mantri was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the courts had already found that no demand was made by the Peon, the prosecution case could not succeed merely on the basis of possession of the ₹20 currency note.
The Court also found the defence version of the Peon — that the ₹20 was given after the Income Certificate had been received and in the context of the upcoming Eid festival — to be a probable explanation.
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s judgment dated November 30, 1999, as well as the Gujarat High Court’s judgment dated January 22, 2015. The appellants were acquitted of the offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Their appeals were allowed and their bail bonds were ordered to stand cancelled.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
