1. Public servant convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe to conduct an official inquiry. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 797
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Paritala Sudhakar – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2541 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6066 of 2024]
Decided On : 09-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mehaak Jaggi , AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Vineet George, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mehaak Jaggi , AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Vineet George, Adv.
The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was overturned due to failure in proving beyond reasonable doubt the demand for bribe and inconsistencies in testimonies.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) - Appeal against conviction on alleged bribery - High Court dismissed appeal confirming conviction for demanding and accepting bribe - Conviction based on inconsistent testimonies and lack of independent verification - Importance of proving demand beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 9, 20)
(B) Criminal jurisprudence - Benefit of doubt - Accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty; minor discrepancies in evidence should not invalidate prosecution’s case unless they affect the core issues involved. (Paras 17, 18)
(C) Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.
Result: The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant is set aside, extending to him the benefit of doubt.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the proof of demand, reliability of trap proceedings, existence of prior animus, and the applicability of the statutory presumption regarding illegal gratification. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Material contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the placement of tainted money and the lack of proven demand render the prosecution's case unreliable. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. The statutory presumption of illegal gratification under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is inapplicable if the demand for a bribe is not proved. (Para 21 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside, granting the benefit of doubt to the appellant. (Para 22 , 23 )
6. Does the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act apply if the demand for a bribe is not proved?
No. The court held that where the factum of demand has not been proved, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not operate against the accused. (Para 21 )
7. How do material contradictions in prosecution evidence affect a criminal conviction?
While minor discrepancies are ignored, contradictions that go to the root of the matter and create serious doubt about the truthfulness of witnesses entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
8. Is the recovery of tainted money sufficient for conviction if the pH test is negative and the demand is disputed?
Recovery alone is insufficient if the circumstances of the recovery are contradictory and the demand is not established beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the pH test is negative. (Para 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal at the instance of the sole Appellant-convict (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘accused officer’) against the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’). The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and affirmed the Judgment dated 29.01.2008 of the learned Additional Special Judge for Special Police Establishment & Anti-Corruption Bureau Cases at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Calendar [Mis-spelt as ‘Calender’ in the Trial Court Judgment.] Case No.19 of 2004, whereby the Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and also for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months.
FACTUAL POSITION:
3. The Appellant, presently aged about 70 years, was working as a Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MRO’) posted at Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda District, which was in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh between 12.10.2001 to 20.08.2003. On 06.08.2003, the complainant submitted an application to the MRO, Gundala Mandal, claiming compensation for trees that dried up due to drought. The MRO forwarded the same to the accused officer/Appellant for conducting an inquiry. On the same day, in the evening, it was alleged that when the complainant (hereinafter also referred to as ‘PW1’) approached the Appellant to discuss a matter regarding compensation for the damaged trees, the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to conduct the inquiry and prepare a report. It was further alleged that on 07.08.2003, PW1 met the accused officer and requested that he is not in a position to pay such huge amount, whereupon the accused officer is said to have stated that unless the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) is paid to him, he would not come to the village for inspection. It is alleged that the Appellant finally asked PW1 to come with the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) and meet him at his residence at Mothukur Village on 11.08.2003.
4. Aggrieved by these demands, PW1 filed a written complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW7’) on 08.08.2003. PW7 registered a case being Cr. No.19/ACB-HR/2003 against the Appellant under Section 7 of the Act, on 11.08.2003.
5. On 11.08.2003, in presence of independent mediators, PW1 and others, pre-trap proceedings were conducted. The trap party then went to the Appellant’s house. The house of the Appellant was found locked and PW1 was informed by the Appellant’s neighbours that the Appellant had gone to the MRO at Gundala. From the house, independent witness-PW2 and PW1 went on scooter to the MRO, where PW7 and the other trap members followed them in a jeep. PW1 met the Appellant in the MRO. The Appellant informed that he would come over to Ambala Village and meet him. PW1 and PW2 came out of the office and informed PW7 that the Appellant would meet him at Ambala Village. Again, PW1 and the trap party members went to Ambala Village and waited there. Around 6 PM, the Appellant came on his motorcycle and PW1 approached him, whereafter the Appellant and PW1 both went to PW1’s hou
