The Supreme Court has set aside the corruption conviction of a government employee accused of accepting a Rs. 5,000 bribe, holding that recovery of tainted currency notes cannot sustain a conviction when the prosecution fails to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the appeal of Ajit Kumar, an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella, Jharkhand. The Court found that inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and the absence of reliable proof of the alleged transaction undermined the case against him.

The case arose from a complaint by Durgapad Singh Munda, who joined the Government High School at Sirum as an orderly on February 1, 2010. According to the prosecution, his salary remained unpaid, prompting him to approach the District Education Office.

Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026

Munda alleged that Kumar demanded ₹5,000 to facilitate release of his salary. Unwilling to pay the alleged bribe, he submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi, on April 19, 2010.

Police Inspector Shyamlal Champiya was deputed to verify the complaint. He submitted a report on May 19, 2010, stating that the allegations were true. A vigilance case was subsequently registered, and a trap operation was conducted on May 20, 2010.

Before the operation, the complainant supplied ₹5,000 comprising one ₹1,000 note and eight ₹500 notes. The currency notes were treated with chemicals, and their numbers were recorded before they were handed back to him.

According to the complainant, he accompanied Kumar from the office to Kumar’s residence, where he handed over the money. He alleged that Kumar received the amount and kept it under his bed.

The complainant stated that they then returned to the office, where he signalled to the vigilance team. Kumar was apprehended and taken to his residence, from where the currency notes were recovered.

However, the Supreme Court found substantial inconsistencies in the accounts given by prosecution witnesses. While several witnesses described the alleged payment as having taken place at the residence, others referred to a transaction in the office. Their accounts also differed on aspects of the apprehension and the subsequent chemical test.

The investigating officer admitted during cross-examination that no one had seen Kumar taking the money. Other members of the trap team also acknowledged that they had not witnessed the alleged payment.

The Court found that the alleged demand and handing over of the money rested on the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony in the circumstances of this case.

The evidence of two office employees who were associated with the recovery proceedings further weakened the prosecution case.

Head Clerk Chandeshwar Mahato stated that he remained outside the residence while the vigilance team went inside. During cross-examination, he said that nothing was shown to him and that he signed documents on the instructions of vigilance officials. He had been told that money was recovered from Kumar’s house.

Another clerk, Chandan Kumar Patnayak, stated that he signed papers without knowing their contents. He said that he did not see any money and could not say what had happened inside the residence. He further stated that his assertion about recovery of the currency notes was made on the direction of the police.

The Court noted that some witnesses had signed the seizure documents merely because vigilance officials directed them to do so.

The Supreme Court also examined the delay in submission of the complaint verification report.

Inspector Champiya stated that he accompanied the complainant to Kumar’s office on April 22, 2010, and overheard their conversation. However, he submitted his verification report only on May 19, 2010.

He attributed the delay to the complainant’s inability to arrange the bribe money immediately. The Court observed that arranging money for the trap had no bearing on whether the complaint itself was true.

While examining the evidence as a whole, the Bench found numerous inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narration of events.

The prosecution relied on recovery of currency notes whose numbers matched the pre-trap memorandum. It also relied on the chemical solution turning pink when Kumar’s hands or fingers were dipped into it.

The defence argued that the recovery and chemical test did not establish either a demand for a bribe or voluntary acceptance of money as illegal gratification. It also questioned the timing of the test.

The Supreme Court’s conclusion rested on the prosecution’s failure to prove the essential facts of demand and acceptance. Recovery of the treated notes and the chemical-test evidence did not overcome that failure.

The Bench referred to P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in which the Supreme Court held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential to establish the relevant offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of alleged bribe money, without proof of demand, is insufficient.

It also relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), which explained that the prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as facts necessary to prove the accused public servant’s guilt.

Referring to Aman Bhatia v. State, the Court reiterated that mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes cannot establish the relevant offences in the absence of proof of demand. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe.

The Bench additionally cited Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, where the Court had applied these principles to a case in which demand and acceptance were not proved.

Applying those decisions, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish demand and acceptance by Kumar.

The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, had convicted Kumar on February 27, 2021, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

He was sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 for each offence, with the prison sentences running concurrently. The Jharkhand High Court upheld the conviction and sentence on July 21, 2022.

When the Supreme Court issued notice on July 24, 2026, Kumar’s counsel submitted that he had completed the sentence and paid the fine but wished to pursue the proceedings to clear his name.

The State argued that the conviction was supported by the evidence and that discrepancies did not justify interference. It also submitted that, since Kumar had served his sentence, the appeal had become an academic exercise.

The Supreme Court nevertheless examined the evidence and allowed the appeal.

The Bench set aside both the trial court’s judgment and the Jharkhand High Court’s decision affirming it. It declared that the charges against Kumar under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be proved and cleared him of those charges.

The ruling reinforces the requirement that a corruption conviction must rest on proof of the essential ingredients of the offence. In this case, recovery of ₹5,000 could not substitute for reliable proof that the money had been demanded and accepted as a bribe.

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.

Read More: Commercial Property Can’t Bar ₹2.63 Crore Capital Gains Exemption: ITAT