Mere Acceptance of Bribe Is Not Sufficient Unless Demand Is Proved: Bombay HC Acquits Former Zilla Parishad Executive Engineer in Corruption Case [Read Judgment]

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has set aside the conviction of a former Zilla Parishad Executive Engineer in a corruption case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove two mandatory ingredients: the demand of bribe by the accused and due application of mind by the sanctioning authority while according sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court emphasized that mere admission of a sanction document by defence counsel does not dispense with the prosecution’s duty to establish that the sanctioning authority applied its mind. It further reiterated that mere acceptance of a bribe is not sufficient unless the demand is proved.

Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh delivered the decision on December 5, 2025, while allowing a criminal appeal filed by Sharad Tayade, a retired government servant, challenging his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

According to the prosecution case, Grampanchayat Umri Jahagir, District Nanded, resolved to construct a cement concrete road, which was to be executed by the Sarpanch of the village. The Sarpanch entrusted the construction work to the complainant, Sachin Balaji Chavan, who completed the work at an approximate cost of ₹1,97,103. After completion of the work in 2014, the complainant submitted the running bill to the appellant, who was then serving as an Executive Engineer with the Zilla Parishad, Nanded.

The complainant allegedly requested the appellant to sign the necessary documents for passing the bill. It was alleged that the appellant demanded 2% of the bill amount, i.e., ₹4,000, as a bribe for sanctioning the payment. The complainant expressed his unwillingness to pay the amount immediately and thereafter approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), where he lodged a complaint before Police Inspector Dayanand Sarvade on September 30, 2014.

Following verification, a trap was arranged. Panch witnesses were called, and anthracene powder was applied to currency notes amounting to ₹3,000. The raiding party, along with the complainant and panch witnesses, proceeded to the Zilla Parishad premises at Nanded, where the appellant allegedly accepted the bribe amount in the parking area and kept it in the left pocket of his trousers. Upon examination under ultraviolet light, anthracene traces were found on the fingertips of the appellant’s left hand. The tainted currency notes and the appellant’s trousers were seized.

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and charges were framed. Three witnesses were examined: the complainant (PW-1), the panch witness (PW-2), and the investigating officer (PW-3). The Special Judge (ACB), Nanded, convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment for each offence, with fines, to run concurrently.

The appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the judgment was illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record. It was argued that the complainant was not legally allotted the construction work, had no contractor’s licence, and was described as a student by occupation. The appellant further contended that demand and acceptance were not proved, no independent witness corroborated the alleged acceptance, and PW-2 admitted that he could not hear the conversation regarding the alleged demand.

Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court decisions, including P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police (2015) 10 SCC 152, wherein it was held that mere acceptance or recovery of illegal gratification, without proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

The State opposed the appeal, asserting that sanction was admitted and that the panch evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case. The State relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jiyalal (2009) 15 SCC 72 to contend that examination of the sanctioning authority was not mandatory.

Upon detailed examination, the High Court recorded two crucial findings. First, on sanction, the Court held that even if the sanction order is admitted, the prosecution must still prove that the sanctioning authority applied its mind, as mandated under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Admission by defence counsel cannot substitute statutory proof.

Secondly, on demand, the Court noted that PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that he could not hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. This omission went to the root of the prosecution case, rendering the alleged demand doubtful.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt and reiterated that mere acceptance of bribe is insufficient unless demand is proved.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated January 8, 2018, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The fine amount, if paid, was directed to be refunded, and the surety was discharged.

Case Title: Sharad S/o Manga Tayade v. State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No.: 76 of 2018

[Read Judgment]