Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 1214
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Ajit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4573 of 2026
Decided On : 05-10-2026
Important Points
Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting offence under Sections 7 and 13 of PC Act.
Act Referred
Headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting offence under Sections 7 and 13 of PC Act – In absence thereof, charge would fail – Failure of prosecution to prove demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of alleged bribe money from accused would not be sufficient for conviction under Sections 7 or 13 of PC Act – Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused as a fact in issue could not be proved by prosecution in present case – Impugned Judgment set aside. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Special Judge had convicted appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00 with a default stipulation for each of the two offences, both sentences to run concurrently. High Court of Jharkhand affirmed conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by Court of Special Judge.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order dated 27.02.2021 passed by Special Judge in Vigilance Case No. 17 of 2010 as well as the judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by High Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 135 of 2021 set aside.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shambo Nandy, AOR Mr. Daksh Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv.
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 135 of 2021 (Ajit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand) affirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Court of Special Judge, AntiCorruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa (briefly ‘the Special Judge’ hereinafter) in Vigilance Case No. 17 of 2010 vide the judgment and order dated 27.02.2021.
2. Be it stated that by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27.02.2021, learned Special Judge had convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’ hereinafter) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00 with a default stipulation for each of the two offences, both the sentences to run concurrently.
3. On 24.07.2026, when this Court had issued notice, learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that though the appellant had undergone the sentence of imprisonment and paid the fine, yet he would like to pursue the related special leave petition to get his name cleared. On 23.09.2026, leave was granted and the appeal was heard whereafter the judgment was reserved.
4. At the outset, it would be appropriate to narrate the prosecution case.
4.1. Prosecution case is that PW-1 Durgapad Singh Munda was appointed to the post of orderly in the Government High School at Sirum on 01.02.2010 but his salary was not paid. Appellant was an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella. Durgapad Singh Munda approached the appellant for release of his salary. Appellant demanded Rs. 5,000.00 as bribe for getting the salary released.
4.2. However, Durgapad Singh Munda did not like to pay the bribe. Therefore, on 19.04.2010, he submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi (briefly ‘the SP’ hereinafter). The SP deputed PW-2, Police Inspector Shyamlal Champiya, to verify the complaint and to submit report. Inspector Shyamlal Champiya submitted report on 19.05.2010 stating that the allegations made in the complaint were true. Thereafter, Vigilance PS Case No. 17/2010 was registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act.
4.3. PW-11 DSP Ramashish Raut was assigned the task of investigation. He completed the investigation and submitted the chargesheet on 10.07.2010 alongwith the sanction order before the Court of the learned Special Judge. Vide the order dated 12.07.2010, learned Special Judge took cognizance under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
4.4. Charges under the aforesaid provisions were framed by the learned Special Judge on 14.12.2010. However, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried.
4.5. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses including the complainant Durgapad Singh Munda as PW-1, Police Inspector Shyamlal Champiya as PW-2, and DSP Ramashish Raut, the investigating officer, as PW-11. Prosecution also exhibited a number of documents.
4.6. On conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.
4.7. Aggrieved thereby, appellant preferred appeal before the High Court and vide the judgment and order dated 21.07.2022, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
5. Mr. Shambo Nandy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. The High Court also fell in error in affirming such conviction and sentence.
5.1. He submits that prosecution has failed to establish the alleged demand of illegal gratification by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for an offence under the aforesaid provisions. Prosecution relied entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.
5.2. It is evident that the dem
