Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Insufficient For Conviction Under PC Act Without Proof Of Demand: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-09-09

Demand for Bribe is 'Sine Qua Non': Chhattisgarh HC Acquits Man in 38-Year-Old Corruption Case Citing Lack of Proof

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a former Bill Assistant in a corruption case dating back to 1986, emphasizing the settled legal principle that the prosecution must prove the demand for a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that mere recovery of tainted currency notes, without concrete proof of demand, is insufficient to establish guilt.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while setting aside the 2004 conviction by a Raipur Special Court, allowed the appeal filed by Jageshwar Prasad Awadhiya, who was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹100.

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case originated on October 24, 1986, when the appellant, Jageshwar Prasad Awadhiya, was working as a Bill Assistant in the Divisional Workshop of M.P.S.R.T.C. at Raipur. It was alleged that he demanded an illegal gratification of ₹100 from the complainant, Ashok Kumar Verma, to process and clear his arrears bill.

Following a complaint to the Lokayukt, a trap was laid. Two currency notes of ₹50 each, treated with phenolphthalein powder, were given to the complainant. The appellant was apprehended after the complainant signalled that the money had been handed over. A subsequent test where the appellant's hands were washed in a sodium carbonate solution turned the solution pink, and the tainted notes were recovered from him.

The Special Judge & 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, convicted Awadhiya in 2004 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

Arguments in the High Court

The appellant’s counsel argued three primary points:

1. Lack of Authority: The appellant was not in a position to clear the bill on the date of the alleged demand (24.10.1986), as the official order for preparing the arrears was received nearly a month later, on 19.11.1986.

2. Failure to Prove Demand: The prosecution failed to provide any corroborative evidence to prove that the appellant had demanded a bribe. The testimony of the complainant was the sole evidence, which was not supported by the shadow witness or other members of the trap team.

3. Invalid Trial: The sanction for prosecution was issued under the old Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, whereas the trial was conducted under the new Act of 1988, which vitiated the proceedings.

Conversely, the State counsel supported the trial court's judgment, arguing that the successful trap, the recovery of marked notes, and the positive phenolphthalein test were conclusive proof of the appellant's guilt.

Court's Findings and Legal Principles Applied

Justice Guru conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and witness testimonies, ultimately finding the prosecution's case to be riddled with inconsistencies and lacking foundational proof.

The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (2022) and B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) , to reiterate that "proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non" for a conviction.

The judgment highlighted several critical evidentiary gaps:

* Uncorroborated Demand: The complainant (PW2) was the only witness to allege a demand. The shadow witness (PW3) and other official witnesses (PW6, PW8) admitted they were positioned too far away to hear the conversation between the appellant and the complainant or to witness the actual exchange of money.

* Contradictions in Evidence: The court noted a glaring contradiction regarding the denomination of the recovered currency. While some witnesses stated two ₹50 notes were used, another key witness (PW6) mentioned a single ₹100 note, casting doubt on the identity of the incriminating material.

* Plausible Defense: The defense witnesses corroborated the appellant's claim that he lacked the authority to prepare the bill without prior sanction, making the premise for the bribe demand improbable.

The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the crucial elements of the offense. It observed:

"On a cumulative consideration of the above depositions, the prosecution evidence with regard to demand is riddled with inconsistencies... What remains is only the recovery of tainted currency, which, in absence of proof of demand, is insufficient in law to sustain conviction. Therefore, from the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, demand is not proved."

While dismissing the appellant's argument regarding the validity of the sanction by citing Section 30(2) of the PC Act, 1988 (saving clause), the court found the failure to prove demand and acceptance to be fatal to the prosecution's case.

Verdict and Implications

Finding the conviction unsustainable due to the prosecution's failure to discharge its burden of proof, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. Jageshwar Prasad Awadhiya was acquitted of all charges. The decision underscores the judiciary's strict adherence to the principle that in corruption cases, the entire chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery must be proven, and a weak link in this chain, especially the absence of a proven demand, will result in acquittal.