The complainant, an orderly at a government high school, alleged that an assistant in the District Education Office demanded Rs 5,000 to release his unpaid salary. A trap was laid on 20 May 2010. The prosecution said the money was recovered from under the appellant's pillow at his residence and that his fingers turned pink in the chemical test.
The Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum) convicted him on 27 February 2021 under Sections 7 and 13(2) and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 10,000 fine on each count, to run concurrently. The Jharkhand High Court dismissed his appeal on 21 July 2022. He had already served the sentence but pursued the appeal to clear his name.
The Key Question Before the Court
Were demand and acceptance of illegal gratification proved beyond reasonable doubt when the case rested on the complainant's evidence and recovery of the money?
Demand Is the Sine Qua Non
As reported, the Court found “inconsistencies galore” in the trap account. Witnesses disagreed on whether the arrest took place at the appellant's residence or his office, and two office clerks said they signed the seizure papers at the direction of the vigilance officials. No witness saw the demand or the payment.
The Court restated that recovery of tainted money alone does not prove the offence. Demand and acceptance are facts in issue, and demand is the sine qua non. It cited Aman Bhatia v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013), P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152, the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 and Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1952, as reported.
What the Court Actually Held
- Both the trial court and High Court judgments were set aside and the appeal allowed.
- The charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act was not proved.
- Recovery of tainted money alone does not prove the offence.
- Demand and acceptance must be established, and demand is the sine qua non.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reaffirms the demand requirement under the PC Act after Neeraj Dutta.
- It shows trap cases failing on inconsistent witness accounts.
- It confirms that an appeal can be pursued after the sentence is served, to clear the conviction.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Defence Counsel
- Test the trap narrative for place, witness and seizure inconsistencies.
- Insist on direct or reliable circumstantial proof of demand.
For Prosecution Counsel
- Lead evidence of the demand and acceptance, not merely recovery.
- Ensure independent witnesses actually observed the transaction.
Key Takeaways
- Recovery alone is not enough under the PC Act.
- Demand is the sine qua non.
- Inconsistent trap evidence can defeat a conviction.
- A served sentence does not bar an appeal against conviction.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The Court reiterated that demand and acceptance must be proved, and recovery alone does not establish the offence.
As reported, witnesses disagreed about where the arrest happened, and two clerks said they signed seizure papers at the officials' direction.
Yes, but he pursued the appeal to clear his name, and the conviction was set aside.
Conclusion
The ruling is a reminder that the PC Act case stands or falls on demand. A neat recovery does not fill the gap.
Practical takeaway: Scrutinise the proof of demand and the consistency of the trap evidence before accepting a conviction.