Supreme Court affirms acquittal where “factum of demand” for bribe was not proved; Section 20 presumption inapplicable

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard an appeal by the State (Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere) challenging a Karnataka High Court order that set aside a trial court conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal concerned whether the accused public servant had demanded and accepted Rs.1,500 as illegal gratification in relation to a spot inspection report.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s acquittal, holding that the essential element of “demand” was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, consequently, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act did not operate. The Court emphasized that “A penal law has to be strictly construed” and agreed with the High Court that the prosecution’s case suffered from significant infirmities in proof of demand and credibility of witnesses. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “As far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the Appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant, is not proved. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant, in terms of the pronouncement in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana ...” The Court further stated that “the factum of demand itself has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt,” and therefore the acquittal could not be treated as perverse.

Background

The accused, an Extension Officer in the Taluka Panchayat, Davanagere, faced prosecution after a complainant alleged that on 07.02.2007 the officer demanded Rs.1,500 to forward a spot inspection report required for a validity certificate. The complainant said he returned in the evening with the money and paid the sum, which was later seized by a Lokayuktha trap team using phenolphthalein-smeared currency and chemical tests on the accused’s fingers. The Trial Court convicted under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced the accused to imprisonment and fines. The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside conviction, finding that the prosecution had not proved demand and that witness testimony—especially the complainant’s—was unreliable.

On appeal, the State relied on the presumption under Section 20 of the Act (invoked when demand and acceptance of gratification were proved) and recent authority contending that once recovery of tainted notes was shown the reverse onus applied. The defence highlighted contradictions in prosecution evidence: the complainant initially denied a prior spot inspection but later admitted and identified signatures on the report; PW2’s deposition was inconsistent about witnessing the demand; and the file may already have been forwarded before the payment was allegedly made. The Court examined witness testimony, contemporaneous documents, and precedents and recorded that where the “initial demand itself is suspicious,” the chain required for conviction (demand, acceptance, recovery) remained incomplete. The Court cited precedent that the presumption under Section 20 would not apply where demand was not proved and concluded that the High Court’s acquittal was not perverse. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court judgment was upheld; there was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 736; Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2015 Case Title: State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C B Nagaraj Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]