New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment emphasizing that the mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to establish corruption unless the entire chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Pankaj Mithal delivered the judgment in the case of State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere vs. C B Nagaraj, addressing important aspects of corruption prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court heard an appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s decision that had set aside a trial court’s conviction of an Extension Officer who was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of Rs. 1,500.
The case involved allegations against an Extension Officer in the Taluka Panchayat office in Davanagere, who was accused of demanding illegal gratification from the complainant for submitting a spot inspection report related to a validity certificate claim.
The prosecution’s case centered on events of February 7, 2007, when the respondent allegedly demanded Rs. 1,500 as a bribe at 12:30 PM and later accepted the money between 5:30–5:45 PM. A trap operation was conducted by the Lokayuktha Police, resulting in the recovery of phenolphthalein-smeared currency notes from the accused.
However, the Supreme Court observed significant flaws in the prosecution’s case, noting: “It is clear that, basically, it is only the version of the complainant himself which can be said to have some basis with regard to the demand of the amount of Rs. 1,500 as bribe, allegedly made by the respondent.”
The court highlighted critical inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, particularly his initial denial of the spot inspection visit by the accused on February 5, 2007, followed by immediate acceptance when confronted with documentary evidence. The court stated: “Such conduct is sufficient to render his testimony unreliable.”
Addressing the crucial legal principle, the court emphasized: “Just because money changed hands, in cases like the present, it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain – beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery – has to be completed.”
The court further clarified the application of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which creates a presumption against the accused. The court noted: “While a reverse onus under a specific statute can be placed on an accused, even then, there cannot be a presumption which casts an uncalled-for onus on the accused.”
Significantly, the court ruled that the presumption under Section 20 would not apply when demand itself has not been proven, citing the precedent in Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana: “Where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also have no application.”
The court also considered the timing of events, noting that by the time the complainant returned with the money at 5:30 PM, the accused had already forwarded the relevant file, making the alleged demand illogical.
The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s acquittal order, finding no ground requiring interference. The court observed: “Since the factum of demand itself has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal of the respondent by the impugned judgment cannot be termed perverse or unwarranted.”
Case Title: State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere vs. C B Nagaraj
