Case Name: State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2015
Date of Judgment: 19 May 2025
Quorum: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Respondent, being an Extension Officer at the Taluka Panchayath Office, Davanagere, was deputed to authenticate the Category-II A Validity Certificate of the Complainant, Mr. E. R. Krishnamurthy, who was appointed as a Primary School Teacher in Yadgir District. The Complainant complained that on 07.02.2007 at about 12:30 PM, the Respondent asked for a bribe of Rs.1,500/- for furnishing the inspection report. A complaint was made before the Davanagere Lokayuktha Police, and the Respondent was allegedly caught accepting the bribe between 5:30 PM and 5:45 PM on the same day during a trap operation. The tainted money was recovered and the chemical test established the presence of phenolphthalein on the Respondent’s fingers. The Trial Court held the Respondent guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Yet, the High Court, in the present judgment under appeal, acquitted the Respondent. The State has approached the Supreme Court in the present appeal challenging the acquittal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s conviction?
- Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was properly applied and rebutted?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The Attorney of Record on behalf of the Appellant pleaded that as soon as it is held that the demand and acceptance of the bribe are made out, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is drawn automatically. Though the presumption can be rebutted, no material evidence was led or prosecution witnesses were properly cross-examined by the Respondent to contradict it. It was argued that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of Rs. 1,500/- in dirty money from the Respondent and proved it to be illegal gratification. In support thereof, reference was made to State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3469, in which the Supreme Court held that the presumption in Section 20 arises on evidence of acceptance of gratification and that then the burden falls on the accused, the same as the presumption in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The counsel put forward that the Respondent’s version—that the payment of money was reimbursement of a previous loan—was not supported by anything and lacked credibility. Since the foreseen demand and acceptance were established, it was argued that there was no other possible conclusion and so the appeal must be granted.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
Firstly, it was argued that the testimony of the Complainant was not credible and seemed to be prompted by mala fide intent. While the Complainant had denied the spot inspection report at first, he eventually confessed—when pressed—the said report did carry his and his father’s signatures. Secondly, it was argued that during the time of purported demand, the spot inspection report was already submitted to the concerned department. Accordingly, there was no outstanding official task with the Respondent, rendering the accusation of bribe demand unlikely. Third, the Respondent has always insisted, since the seizure, that the money recovered was only a return of an advance loan provided to the Complainant during the inspection visit—an account provided without any second thought. Finally, counsel also pointed out the Respondent’s personal situation: he is a 67-year-old, award-winning officer with a spotless service record, afflicted by permanent visual disability and age-related illnesses. It was thus requested that the appeal be dismissed in justice.
ANALYSIS
The Court thoroughly reviewed the pleadings, the documents on file, and the arguments made by both parties. It was not in dispute that the Respondent was the Extension Officer of the Taluka Panchayath, Davanagere at the material time and was charged with drafting a spot inspection report to be forwarded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of the Complainant’s application for a Validity Certificate under Category-II A. The Complainant submitted that on 07.02.2007 at about 12:30 PM, the Respondent had asked for ₹1,500 as illegal gratification and subsequently accepted the amount at 5:30 PM the same day from the trap witnesses. But the evidence, especially from PW2, was contradictory. Whereas PW2 initially stated that he had not heard the Complainant and Respondent discuss inside the chamber, he later explained that he witnessed the Complainant handing over money to the Respondent but could not guarantee the demand.The credibility of the Complainant himself was raised when he initially denied knowledge about the report of spot inspection, but eventually, after being confronted with Exhibit D8, acknowledged that he signed it and recognized his father’s and the witness’s signatures.This inconsistency undermined the demand alleged by the prosecution. In addition, the prosecution case was marred by a fundamental flaw—the alleged demand came after the Respondent already sent and completed the required report. If the task for which the bribe was purportedly sought had already been completed, the reason for making the payment did not make sense. The prosecution was unable to prove the complete chain of events required for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act—i.e., demand, acceptance, and recovery. Consistent with rulings such as Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam and Jay Kishan v. State of U.P., the Court repeated that criminal statutes have to be interpreted strictly, and conviction cannot be based on the mere presumption that payment and recovery took place without solid evidence of demand. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is not attracted when the ingredient of demand is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, as explained in Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana and Om Parkash v. State of Haryana. The contradictions in the Complainant’s testimony and his inability to satisfactorily explain the denial and subsequent acceptance of the inspection report further weakened the case of the prosecution.
JUDGMENT
As the prosecution was unable to establish the essential ingredient of demand beyond reasonable doubt, and the complainant’s testimony is unreliable, the statutory presumption under Section 20 cannot apply. Recovery of money alone is not enough without evidence of demand. Therefore, the acquittal of the Respondent by the High Court is not perverse and calls for no interference.
CONCLUSION
In the light of the above discussion and law, the Supreme Court did not find any merit in the appeal. The Impugned Judgment of the High Court acquitting the Respondent was maintained. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected, with no order as to costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ADI MEHTA
