To charge a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, both demand and acceptance of bribe must be established by legally admissible evidence.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Closure report rejected - Allegation of bribery against public servant based on pseudonymous complaint and inferential evidence; insufficient to prosecute. (Paras 1, 10, 11, 26, 76)

(B) Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - For a charge under the Act, proof of demand and acceptance is essential. Mere possession of money without proof of illegal gratification does not suffice. (Paras 32, 74, 76)

(C) Standard of Evidence - The prosecution must provide legally admissible evidence; vague evidence in the absence of direct witnesses cannot establish guilt. (Paras 60, 70, 76)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a public servant, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.49,000 for procurement-related transactions, based on a complaint coupled with a video recording, which were deemed insufficient due to lack of direct evidence. (Paras 1-11, 25-27)

Findings of Court:
The court held there was no prima facie evidence to substantiate allegations of bribery; thus, the closure report should have been accepted. (Paras 26, 76)

Issues: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claims of bribery and whether the pseudonymous complaint was valid for prosecution. (Paras 1, 30, 56)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a lack of demand and acceptance of bribes, and reliance on circumstantial and inferential evidence made the case unprosecutable. (Paras 32, 70, 74, 76)

Result: Petition allowed; cognizance against the petitioner set aside.

Table of Content
1. petitioner’s career background and procurement transaction (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. allegation of bribe and investigation initiation (Para 6 , 10 , 11)
3. evidence and credibility of allegations discussed (Para 12 , 14 , 19)
4. investigation findings regarding video evidence (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. court's disagreement with special judge on closure report (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
6. arguments on lack of evidence and procedural issues (Para 28 , 32 , 35)
7. requirement of evidence for bribery under law (Para 41 , 55 , 69)
8. final ruling and discharge of petitioner (Para 74 , 76 , 77)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C' hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner for setting aside the Order dated 27.11.2020 vide which the Closure Report filed by the Respondent- CBI in FIR RC-DAI-2019-A0022, under Section 120 B read with Sections 7/12/13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been rejected and Order dated 15.02.2021 vide which he has been summoned.

2. The brief background, as spelt out by the Petitioner is that upon his selection by UPSC in February, 2017, he joined Employees State Insurance Corporation (henceforth referred to as “ESIC”) as Deputy Director and was promoted to the post of Joint Director in March, 2008. He performed all his duties and responsibilities with full devotion and commitment and his ACR/APAR has always been above the zone of consideration and he had received commendations for his work as well.

3. Procurement Demand of 10 Racks: On 25.08.2017, requisition of 10 Racks was made by the Medical Record Officer- Prem Raj to the Medical Superintendent, ESIC Hospital, Basaidarapur. On 30.08.2017, the Assistant Director-Narendra Dahiya, issued a direction to Non-Medical Store for procurement of the Racks on urgent basis. The concerned Dealing Assistant- Jagdish Prasad proposed that a Purchase Committee may be constituted and put the said requisition for approval/order of the Medical Superintendent and submitted for its procurement, which was approved by the Medical Superintendent- Dr. S.K. Raju on 06.09.2017 who constituted a Purchase Committee and nominated three Members, namely, Dr. Rajpal, In-charge Hospital Store; Mr. Narender Dahiya, Assistant Director and Mr. Vijay Kumar, Deputy Director, Finance. The Committee submitted its Report 11.09.2017 and recommended purchase of Racks from M/s Vansh Industries, which travelled from Dealing Assistant to Assistant Director to the Petitioner(Joint Director) and then to the Medical Superintendent, who approved it on 12.09.2017.

4. On 15.09.2017, with the concurrence of Deputy Director (Finance)- Vijay Kumar, Supply Order for purchase of Racks was issued on 16.09.2017.

5. No objections raised in Procurement Process: The Medical Superintendent nominated the Assistant Director as the Verifying Officer who inspected the Racks 24.10.2017 and on 31.10.2017. The Dealing Assistant submitted a noting that the Racks were as per the Supply Order as was verified by the Assistant Director, and requested the Medical Superintendent to sanction the Invoice/Bill amount for payment to the Vendor/Supplier. The Proposal was approved by Assistant Director, who found it in order and raised no red flag and forwarded it to the Petitioner, Joint Director; who thereafter submitted it to the Medical Superintendent for sanction.

6. Excess Money and Server Issues: On 31.01.2017, the Supplier‟s Representative, Mr. Savinder Kumar came to his Office and during conversation, according to the Petitioner, he realized that the Supplier had charged excess money for the sale of the Racks and other Articles. He recovered excess money of Rs.49,000/- from the Supplier, but he could not generate the Challan for deposit of the said money due to Server/ Networking issues on 31.01.2017, which continued on 01.11.2017 and 02.11.2017. The Petitioner made an attempt to inform the Medical Superintendent but co