+91 964 334 1948
25 May 2025, 09:15 AM
The Supreme Court held that the mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless the entire chain of events i.e., the demand, acceptance, and recovery is established.
Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah acquitted a public servant accused of demanding a ₹1,500 bribe from a school teacher for forwarding a caste certificate, finding that the element of demand was not established, irrespective of the fact that the other two components acceptance and recovery of tainted money was proven.
“The observation of the High Court to this extent is correct that 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. In the case at hand, when the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the two other components – of payment and recovery can be held to have been proved, the chain would not be complete.”, the court observed.
It was the case where the respondent was accused of demanding a bribe from the complainant (a teacher) to forward a caste validity certificate report. A trap was laid, and tainted currency was recovered from the respondent. The respondent claimed the money was repayment of a personal loan.
The Trial Court convicted him, but the High Court acquitted him, doubting the complainant's credibility and the proof of demand.
Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah stressed that unless the prosecution establishes the complete chain of events connecting the demand to the acceptance, the mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, as no presumption of guilt arises that the accused must rebut.
Because the factum of demand was in doubt, the Court deemed it appropriate not to shift the burden upon the accused to disprove the prosecution's case.
“Thus, on an overall conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any ground made out by the Appellant requiring interference by this Court. The Impugned Judgment is, hence, upheld.”, the court held.
In terms of the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Case Title: STATE OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, DAVANAGERE VERSUS C B NAGARAJ
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 620
Click here to read/download the judgment
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
For Respondent(s) Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Sr. Adv. Ms. Priya Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR