STATE OF HP vs KAILASH CHAND - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3087

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Appeal against acquittal - Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Presumption under Section 20 does not apply unless demand is proved - No work pending with accused at time of alleged demand - Mutation already attested - Handwash turning pink explained by accused counting notes at instance of trap party - Witnesses turning hostile - Trial court's view reasonable - Appellate court not to interfere unless perverse.

(B) Appeal - Scope - Interference with acquittal only if judgment perverse, based on misreading, or no reasonable view possible.

Facts of the case:
The informant alleged that the accused, a Patwari, demanded a bribe of Rs. 3000/- for attesting a mutation in favour of the informant's mother. A trap was laid, but the informant and shadow witness turned hostile, stating that the accused was not present and the money was placed on the table in his absence. The mutation had already been attested prior to the alleged demand. The accused's handwash turned pink, but witnesses stated he was asked to count the notes by the trap party.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance, essential ingredients. The presumption under Section 20 was not triggered. The trial court's acquittal was based on a reasonable view and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of bribe was proved beyond reasonable doubt? (ii) Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could be invoked? (iii) Whether the judgment of acquittal suffered from perversity?

Ratio Decidendi: Demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Without proof of demand, mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient. Where no official work is pending, the alleged demand is improbable. The appellate court should not substitute its view if the trial court's view is possible. Result : Appeal dismissed. Accused directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal by State against acquittal of public servant charged with demanding and accepting bribe for official act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

2. State contended demand and acceptance proved; accused contended no pending work and no demand. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )

3. High Court dismissed appeal, confirming acquittal for lack of proof of demand. (Para 33 , 34 )

4. What is the standard of review in an appeal against acquittal?

The appellate court can interfere only if the acquittal is patently perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or no reasonable person could have recorded acquittal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )

5. Is proof of demand essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Yes, demand and acceptance are essential ingredients; mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand is insufficient for conviction. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )

6. Does the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act apply without proof of demand?

No, the presumption under Section 20 is not triggered unless demand is proved; it cannot be used to fill gaps in prosecution evidence. (Para 22 )

7. Can a bribe be demanded for work already completed?

No, when no official work is pending, the demand for a bribe becomes highly improbable and casts doubt on the prosecution case. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )

8. Does a positive hand wash test alone prove acceptance of bribe?

No, if the accused handled the currency notes at the instance of the police, the positive hand wash is explained and does not prove voluntary acceptance. (Para 30 , 31 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:22023

Cr. Appeal No. 5 of 2014

State of H.P. ...Appellant Versus f

Kailash Chand ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Yes

For the Appellant : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr Kashmir Singh Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr Harjeet Singh, Advocate.

Reserved on: 23.04.2026

Date of Decision: 05.06.2026.

JUDGMENT TEXT

Cr. Appeal No. 5 of 2014

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.09.2013, passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charged offences (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). It was asserted that Jivnee, mother of the informant Nazakat Ali (PW-1), had inherited 3 Bighas and 14 Biswas of land after her mother's death in Village Bogrian, Tehsil Nahan, H.P. A mutation was to be attested in her favour. Accused (Kailash Chand) was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle, Nahan, H.P. The informant visited the office of the accused many times for entering the mutation. The accused demanded ₹3000/- as a bribe for entering the mutation. The accused called the informant to Patwarkhana on 07.01.2012 with ₹3000/-. The informant narrated the matter to the police by means of an application (Ext.PW-1/A). FIR (Ext.PW-7/A) was registered by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP) Babita Rana (PW-10), who joined Avtar Singh (PW-5) and Dalip Kumar (PW-4) with the investigation. She constituted a trap party consisting of Inspector Kulvinder Singh (PW-13), Inspector Madan Lal, Inspector Vidya Chand, Sub-Inspector Joginder, HC Sudhir Chauhan, Constable Dev Raj (PW-8), informant Nazakat Ali (PW-1), Mehmood Khan (PW-2), Avtar Singh (PW-5), and Dalip Kumar (PW-4). Dy. S.P Babita Rana (PW-10) read over the contents of the application (Ext.PW-1/A) to the members of the trap party. Nazakat Ali produced four currency notes of ₹500/- and ten currency notes of ₹100/-, which were counted by Mehmood Khan (PW-2). Dy. SP Babita Rana prepared the solution of sodium carbonate powder in a clean glass of water, and the water remained colourless. Mehmood Khan (PW-2) was asked to dip his fingers in the solution, and the solution did not change colour. Serial numbers of currency notes were noted in a pre-trap memo. Babita Rana (PW-10) dusted the currency notes with Phenolphthalein powder and handed them over to Mehmood Khan (PW-2), who counted them. Mehmood Khan (PW-2) was asked to put the currency notes in the left pocket of Nazakat Ali's jacket. Mehmood Khan (PW-2) was asked to dip his fingers in the solution of sodium carbonate, and the colour changed to pink. The witnesses were told about the use of Phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate. Mehmood Khan (PW-2) threw the pink solution in the bathroom. He washed his hands with soap. All the members of the trap party also washed their hands. Babita Rana was directed to deliver the currency notes to Patwari Kailash Chand on his demand and not to shake hands with anyone. Mehmood was deputed as a shadow witness and instructed to hear the conversation between the accused and the informant Nazakat Ali (PW-1) and give the signal to the mobile number of Inspector Kulwinder Singh (PW-13) bearing No. xxxxxxx504 by a missed call. Mehmood Khan (PW-2) was directed to signal the trap party by putting his hand o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3087

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
STATE OF HP – Appellant
Versus
KAILASH CHAND – Respondent
CR.A/5/2014

Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act; without proof of demand, presumption under Section 20 does not arise and mere recovery is insufficient.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the standard of review in an appeal against acquittal?

5. Is proof of demand essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

6. Does the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act apply without proof of demand?

7. Can a bribe be demanded for work already completed?

8. Does a positive hand wash test alone prove acceptance of bribe?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3087

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLASTATE OF HP – AppellantVersusKAILASH CHAND – RespondentCR.A/5/2014

Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act; without proof of demand, presumption under Section 20 does not arise and mere recovery is insufficient.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the standard of review in an appeal against acquittal?

5. Is proof of demand essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

6. Does the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act apply without proof of demand?

7. Can a bribe be demanded for work already completed?

8. Does a positive hand wash test alone prove acceptance of bribe?

Cases Referred (12)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
STATE OF HP – Appellant
Versus
KAILASH CHAND – Respondent
CR.A/5/2014