The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish demand for bribery; mere acceptance is insufficient for conviction under the corruption act.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.21/ACB-KNR/2018 on the file of P.S. ACB, Karimnagar, registered for the offences under Section 7 (a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 .

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Dr. G. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Bala Mohan, learned Standing Counsel for ACB.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted the allegations against the petitioner are absolutely false and the ingredients do not attract the alleged offences. He further submitted that the scheme is not entrusted to the petitioner and that the entire process of the said scheme was completed prior to the trap laid by the ACB and therefore, there is no iota of truth in the allegations leveled against the petitioner. He further relied upon case of K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana , [2022 Online SC 213], wherein it was held by the Apex Court that failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person-

accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. He also placed reliance on Neeraj Datta Vs. State Government of NCT Delhi , [2022 SCC Online SC 1724], wherein it was held that the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. He further submitted that authentication of the electronic evidence under Section 65-B is also not produced by the Department before the concerned Court and hence, there is no materiel to prove the offences against the petitioners herein. Therefore, the prosecution has no evidence to put forth that the petitioners have demanded bribe. He further submitted that sanction for prosecution was not obtained in this case and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for ACB has submitted the prosecution could collect the entire material disclosing the demand and also acceptance. He further submitted that the mediators report also proves the offences against the petitioner herein. They have also recorded the audio, video conversation and proper certification under Section 65-B is filed before the trial Court. Under Section 7 -A of the Prevention of Corruption Act even attempt to make such a demand itself is sufficed to constitute the offence.

5. He further relied upon Dashrath Vs. State of Maharashtra , [2025 SCC Online SC 1054] wherein it was held that if a draft order is placed before the sanctioning authority and he is satisfied that nothing needs to be added/deleted therefrom, the grant of sanction cannot be faulted merely on the ground of absence of addition of words to/deletion of words from the draft.

6. The counsel contended that the sanction of prosecution has been taken in this case, and it is a matter to be decided by the trial Court and that the sanction order not being placed on record, cannot be the ground to quash the proceedings. In the said Dashrath’s case (supra), it was contended that the relevant Government Order was not brought on record in a manner known to law, but it was observed by the Apex Court that it is not the case of the appellant that such an order does not at all exist. It was found that it does exist except that the relevant year of issuance thereof was mentioned in the judgment of the Special Court as 1969, but the relevant Government