Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish an offence under the Act. Mere recovery of tainted money, without establishing the foundational fact of demand through reliable and independent evidence, is insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 - Criminal appeal - Conviction for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification - Prosecution must establish foundational facts of demand and voluntary acceptance through cogent and independent evidence - Mere recovery of tainted currency notes is insufficient to constitute an offence in the absence of proof of demand - Oral testimony of complainant, if uncorroborated by independent witness, cannot be relied upon to prove demand - (Paras 15, 33, 46).

(B) Appeal - Scope and evidentiary standards - Prosecution carries burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Presumption of illegal gratification can be drawn only after foundational facts of demand and acceptance are established - Failure to provide forensic verification of electronic evidence or official record supporting the alleged work creates significant doubt - (Paras 34, 35, 42).

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a conviction wherein a public servant was alleged to have demanded illegal gratification for clearing official payments. During the entrapment proceedings, independent witnesses failed to witness or corroborate the alleged demand. Furthermore, the electronic evidence lacked forensic verification, and the defense argued that the accused possessed no authority to sanction the payments in question, suggesting a falsified implication due to prior departmental disputes.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence of demand rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. Since the independent witnesses, who were present for the trap proceedings, failed to testify to the demand, and the investigation lacked proof that the accused had the authority to process the alleged pending payments, the conviction could not be sustained.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence sufficiently established the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and whether recovery of currency alone is sufficient for conviction under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance is the gravamen of the offence. Without independent corroboration establishing these foundational facts, the statutory presumption of guilt cannot be invoked, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt leading to acquittal.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted.

Judgment on Board

11/03/2026

1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jashpur, District Jashpur RAHUL (C.G.) in Special Case (ACB) No.01/2021, whereby the appellant DEWANGAN Digitally has been convicted under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 06 months.

2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by the public servant by abusing his office, the Special Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Ramesh Kumar Yadav submitted a written complaint on 26.09.2019 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur alleging that he was running an institution in the name and style of “Chhattisgarh Abhinandan Educational and Social Welfare Society, Kotba.” It was stated that the Labour Department, District Jashpur had granted administrative approval vide order dated 02.05.2018 for conducting training under the courses of Mason General and Assistant Electrician. Pursuant thereto, the complainant conducted training for about 320 persons within District Jashpur and thereafter claimed payment of training fees from the department. It was alleged that the accused/appellant Suresh Kurre, who was posted as Labour Inspector at the relevant time, demanded 10% illegal gratification from the complainant for processing the payment. It was further alleged that earlier a cheque of Rs.7,23,492/- had been issued in favour of the complainant’s institution and in consideration thereof the accused had already received Rs.1,50,000/- as illegal gratification. It was further alleged that an amount of Rs.6,37,000/- was still payable to the complainant by the department. When the complainant met the accused in his office on 24.09.2019 and requested for release of the said amount, the accused allegedly demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as illegal gratification for preparing the note-sheet and placing it before the competent authority for approval of the cheque.

4. Since the complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe and intended to have the accused caught red-handed, he approached the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur and lodged the aforesaid complaint. On receipt of the complaint, Inspector Pramod Kumar Khes handed over a digital voice recorder to the complainant and directed him to meet the accused and record the conversation relating to the demand of illegal gratification. In pursuance of the said instructions, the complainant met the accused on 27.09.2019 near his official residence and requested him to reduce the demanded amount. At that time, the accused allegedly stated that instead of Rs.1,00,000/-, the complainant would now have to pay Rs.1,90,000/-, stating that he intended to purchase a Java motorcycle. The conversation relating to the demand of illegal gratification was recorded by the complainant in the digital voice recorder and he informed the ACB officials accordingly.

5. Subsequently, on 12.10.2019, the complainant informed the ACB officials that the accused was repeatedly calling him and demanding the money. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the entire amount at once, the accused allegedly agreed to accept the amount in instalments. The complainant informed him that he could arrange only Rs.40,000/-, whereupon the accused directed him to bring the said amount on 14.10.2019. Acting upon the said information, the complainant was instructed to appear on 14.10.2019 at about 9:00 AM at the PWD Rest House, Jashpur along with the digital voice recorder, the bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- and a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRAMESH SINHA, CJSuresh Kurre – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 2674 of 2025

Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish an offence under the Act. Mere recovery of tainted money, without establishing the foundational fact of demand through reliable and independent evidence, is insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ
Suresh Kurre – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 2674 of 2025