Demand of Bribe is Sine Qua Non for Conviction Under S.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act; Mere Recovery of Money is Insufficient: Allahabad High Court - 2025-07-01

Allahabad High Court Acquits Bank Manager in Bribery Case, Cites Failure to Prove Demand

LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a former bank manager convicted in a 2008 bribery case, underscoring a fundamental principle of anti-corruption law: the prosecution must unequivocally prove the demand of illegal gratification, as mere recovery of money is not sufficient for a conviction.

The bench of Justice SubhashVidyarthi set aside the 2013 conviction of Mohd. Saleem Khan , who was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment by a Special CBI Court. The High Court found the prosecution's case collapsed due to a hostile complainant, a shadow witness who did not hear any demand, and credible defence testimony suggesting a frame-up.

---

Case Background: The CBI Trap

The case dates back to October 16, 2008, when Gayabudh Singh filed a complaint with the CBI, alleging that Mohd. Saleem Khan , then the Manager of Sarva U. P. Gramin Bank, had demanded a bribe of ₹3,000 to issue a no-dues certificate for a loan that had been waived by the government.

The CBI set up a trap on October 17, 2008. The operation culminated in the recovery of ₹2,500 from a passbook found in the drawer of Khan 's office table. Following an investigation, the trial court convicted Khan under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for accepting illegal gratification, though it acquitted him of the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellant, Mohd. Saleem Khan , argued that the prosecution had fundamentally failed to prove the essential ingredient of the offence: a demand for a bribe. His counsel highlighted that: - The complainant, Gayabudh Singh (PW-1), turned hostile during the trial and expressly denied that Khan had ever demanded a bribe. He testified that CBI officials had coerced him into writing the complaint and had orchestrated the incident to falsely implicate the manager. - The shadow witness (PW-2) admitted he could not hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant and thus could not corroborate any demand.

The CBI, on the other hand, argued that the recovery of the tainted money from the appellant’s possession was sufficient to raise a legal presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They contended that even if a complainant turns hostile, a conviction can be sustained based on other circumstantial evidence.

Legal Principles and Court's Analysis

Justice Vidyarthi conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and legal precedents, including the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) . The court reiterated that "proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant... is a sine qua non" to establish guilt under Section 7 of the Act.

The court made several critical observations leading to the acquittal:

"The complainant has stated clearly that he did not need any no-objection certificate... the appellant had not demanded any money from him, the C.B.I. officials had folded the notes and kept the same inside the passbook and he had kept the passbook on the appellant’s table. He had not handed over the money or the passbook to the appellant. The appellant has categorically stated that C.B.I. has falsely implicated the appellant."

The judgment heavily criticized the prosecution's failure to establish a demand. It noted that with the complainant turning hostile and the shadow witness hearing nothing, there was no primary evidence of a demand.

Furthermore, the court gave weight to the defence witnesses, particularly DW-5 (Smt. Pushpa Mishra), an eyewitness present in the cabin who testified that the CBI team forcibly implicated Khan after the complainant simply left a passbook on the table. The court found the trial court’s reasons for dismissing her testimony to be unconvincing.

A significant blow to the prosecution's case was the testimony of Jagdish Singh (DW-4). Initially named as a prosecution witness whose statement supported the CBI's case, he was never examined by the prosecution. Appearing for the defense, he testified that his statement recorded by the CBI was false and that the Public Prosecutor had sent him away from court when he revealed this. The High Court drew an adverse inference against the CBI for withholding this evidence.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court held that the conviction was unsustainable.

"In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. The impugned order passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention Of Corruption Act is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside."

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Special CBI Court. Mohd. Saleem Khan was acquitted of all charges, and the fine paid by him was ordered to be refunded.