Proof of 'Demand' & 'Acceptance' is Sine Qua Non for Conviction Under PC Act; Hostile Complainant Fatal to Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-08-20

Rajasthan High Court Acquits Ex-Police Inspector in Bribery Case, Cites Hostile Complainant and Lack of Proof for Demand

JODHPUR: In a significant ruling on the standards of proof required in corruption cases, the Rajasthan High Court has acquitted a former police inspector convicted in a 2003 bribery case. The court held that the prosecution's failure to prove the essential ingredients of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt, especially after the complainant turned hostile, was fatal to its case.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Garg, sitting at the Jodhpur bench, allowed the appeal filed by Shri Prathvi Singh, setting aside his 2007 conviction by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur. The trial court had sentenced him to three years of imprisonment under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to August 2003, when a wheat trader, Digvijay Singh, filed a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). He alleged that the appellant, Police Inspector Prathvi Singh, had seized his truck of wheat and had been extorting money from him. The complaint stated that after initially paying Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 10,000, the inspector demanded a monthly bribe of Rs. 3,000.

Based on this complaint, the ACB laid a trap on August 10, 2003. During the operation, bribe money of Rs. 2,000 was allegedly recovered, and a chemical test on the appellant's hands turned pink. The trial court found this evidence sufficient to convict the inspector.

---

Key Arguments in the High Court

The appellant's counsel, Mr. B.S. Rathore, argued that the trial court had misjudged the evidence. The core of his argument rested on three points:

1. Hostile Complainant: The primary witness and complainant, Digvijay Singh (PW/3), turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution's narrative of demand and acceptance.

2. No Conscious Possession: The alleged bribe money was found on the floor, not in the appellant's possession, supporting the defense's claim that the complainant forcibly tried to put the money in his pocket, which the appellant refused and threw away.

3. No Pending Work: There was no official work pending with the appellant concerning the complainant that could have served as a motive for demanding a bribe.

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, contended that the appellant was caught red-handed and that the recovery of tainted money was sufficient incriminating material to uphold the conviction.

---

Court's Analysis: Demand and Acceptance Not Proven

Justice Garg conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and found several critical flaws in the prosecution's case. The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act, the prosecution must prove the "twin conditions" of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment highlighted pivotal testimony that dismantled the prosecution's claims:

"...the complainant himself who was examined as PW.3 has been declared hostile and he mentioned that the accused appellant upon being offered the bribe at the time of trap, his hands touched the money but he refused to accept."

Furthermore, the complainant explicitly stated in his cross-examination: "Prathvi Singh ji had not asked for money for any work from me, nor did I give any bribe."

The court also noted that independent trap witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) were not eyewitnesses to the alleged transaction and only saw the money lying on the floor after entering the appellant's chamber.

Citing Supreme Court precedents like K. Shanthamma vs. State of Telangana and N. Sunkanna Vs. State of A.P. , the Court reiterated the settled legal principle:

"Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge..."

---

Absence of Pending Work and Dishonest Intention

The court also found merit in the appellant's argument that no official work was pending. Witnesses from the relevant department (PW-1 and PW-2) testified that the investigation concerning the complainant's truck was not being handled by the appellant and no action was pending at the police station on the date of the trap.

Consequently, the charge under Section 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct) also failed. The court reasoned that without proof of demand or acceptance, there was no evidence to suggest the appellant had used "corrupt or illegal means" or abused his position with a "dishonest intention" to obtain a pecuniary advantage.

---

Final Verdict

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case "beyond all reasonable doubt," the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Shri Prathvi Singh of all charges.

"The sum and substance of the above reasonings go to show that there is no acceptable or clinching evidence proving that appellant, with dishonest intention, committed any acts and obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage," the court observed.

The appellant's bail bonds were discharged, though he was directed to furnish a personal bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.