1. Appeal against acquittal under Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act – Alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Trap case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sushil Kukreja, J
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Hari Saran – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2014
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ankush Thakur, Swati Draik, Shalabh Thakur
For the Respondents: Ajay Kochhar, Anubhav Chopra
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ankush Thakur, Swati Draik, Shalabh Thakur
For the Respondents: Ajay Kochhar, Anubhav Chopra
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient, and the presumption under Section 20 cannot be drawn without proof of demand.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Constitution of India - Article 136 - Scope of appeal against acquittal - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt - Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute an offence under Section 7 - Mere recovery of currency notes without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction - The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can only be drawn if proof of acceptance of illegal gratification is established, which itself requires proof of demand. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 20)
(B) Evidence - Accomplice and interested witnesses - Complainant in a bribery case is an interested witness and cannot be placed on a better footing than an accomplice - Corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime must be insisted upon - In the absence of independent and reliable corroborative evidence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 24, 30, 31)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - The court sitting in appeal against an acquittal should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse, illegal, or based on surmises and conjectures - If two views are possible, the view favouring the accused should be adopted. (Paras 5, 6, 36)
(D) Evidence - Trap cases - Serious endeavor must be made to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court - Non-joining of available independent witnesses as shadow witnesses renders the prosecution case highly doubtful. (Para 25, 26, 27) (E) Evidence - Presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act - The presumption can only be raised after the foundational facts, including demand and acceptance, are proved by the prosecution - In the absence of proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. (Paras 32, 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant/State filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent/accused, a Block Forest Officer, who was charged for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant for providing felling permission and affixing an export hammer on timber. A trap was laid, and the bribe money was allegedly recovered from the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Findings of Court:
The High Court affirmed the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification, which is the sine qua non for the offences. The court found that the complainant (PW-1) and the shadow witness (PW-2) were interested and partisan witnesses, being close relatives and co-accused in another case. The independent witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The court concluded that mere recovery of tainted money, without proof of demand, is insufficient for conviction.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the mandatory requirements for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act had been satisfied? 3. Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could be drawn in the absence of proof of demand?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In its absence, the charge would fail. The testimony of the complainant and his relative, without independent corroboration, is insufficient to prove the demand. The recovery of money alone, without proof of demand, cannot sustain a conviction. Result : Appeal dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge is upheld. The bail bonds stand cancelled. The accused is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as per Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. State contended trial court appreciated evidence perfunctorily; accused argued prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment of acquittal upheld – Bail bonds cancelled. (Para 36 , 37 )
4. What is the essential requirement for proving an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non; mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand cannot sustain conviction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
5. Can a conviction be based solely on evidence of interested witnesses like complainant and shadow witness?
Evidence of interested witnesses must be corroborated by independent evidence; absence of independent shadow witness and non-supporting independent witnesses creates doubt. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 31 )
6. When can the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act be invoked?
Presumption under Section 20 arises only after proof of demand of illegal gratification; without proof of demand, no presumption can be drawn. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 )
7. What is the standard of proof required for the prosecution in corruption cases?
Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion cannot replace proof. (Para 14 , 20 , 35 )
Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment, dated 09.09.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Corruption Case No. 16-CC/7 of 2012, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the ‘PC Act’).
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:
2(a). The accused Hari Saran was posted as Block Forest Officer, Khodari Majari in the year 2010 and during that time Shri Shabir Ali (complainant) was engaged for felling and sawing of timber and Killour Majari beat was open for felling trees from the private land. It is the case of the prosecutio n that the accused used to contact the landowners and manage the permission from the forest department and also use d to assign job of felling trees and marketing to the complainant. The accused prepared one permission in the name of Ram Lal, but three mango trees were got felled from the land of Dhanbir from the complainant by him. On 04.05.2010 the accused, in lieu of permission and for affixing export hammer on the timber, demanded Rs.3000/- from the complainant. The complainant was called by the accused in his office, but he was unwilling to pay the amount of bribe, therefore, he reported the matter to the vigilance team headed by Inspector Madan Lal. Inspector Madan Lal met him at Killour Majari, where the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded, whereupon FIR was registered at Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau & State Vigilance, Nahan. The complainant was given pre-trap demonstration of how to use phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate and subsequently the complainant produced a currency note of Rs.1000/- and four currency notes of Rs.500/-. After treating these notes with phenolphthalein powder and noting down the serial number of these notes, the same were returned to the complainant and he was directed to hand over these notes to accused on demand and not to shake hand with anyone. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the accused alongwith Shri Atik Mohammad (shadow witness), who was instructed to give signal after bribe money was paid to the accused. The complainant and shadow witness went to a tea stall near the office of the accused, where the accused met and demanded bribe money from the complainant. The complainant gave a sum of Rs.3000/- to the accused and in turn the accused handed over permission to the complainant. On the signal of the shadow witness-Shri Atik Mohammad, the vigilance officials, who were already in position near the tea stall, entered the tea stall. The vigilance officials disclosed their identity to the accused and the accused was caught hold of by them from his both wrists and he was made to wash his hands with plain water, but its color did not change. When the hand wash was mixed with solution of sodium carbonate, it turned into pink. The accused, on being asked, produced the bribe money from his front pocket of shirt and serial number of the currency notes were tallied with the serial numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memo. Thereafter, the pocket wash of the shirt of the accused was taken with plain water and its color did not change, but when this pocket wash was mixed with the solution of sodium carbonate, it turned into pink. Thereafter, the investigation ensued and during the investigation various documents relating to the case were take n into possession. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court.
3. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The accused did not plead guilty of the charges framed against him and claimed trial.
4. In order to prov
