Recovery of Bribe Money Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Under the Prevention of Corruption Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates Demand and Acceptance as Indispensable for Bribery Convictions

Case Name: Pritam Singh v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 29 July 2026

Citation: CRA-S-711-SB-2005

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhas Mehla

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification remains the sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes or positive phenolphthalein test results cannot substitute proof of these foundational facts. The Court further held that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked only after the prosecution establishes demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. Since the complainant and the shadow witness failed to support the prosecution case and attributed the alleged demand to other officials, the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, entitling the appellant to acquittal.

Summary: The appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge, Kurukshetra, convicting the appellant, an Assistant Foreman in the Electricity Department, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹10,000 from a consumer accused of electricity theft. According to the prosecution, the appellant had initially received ₹9,000 and later demanded the balance amount of ₹1,000, following which a vigilance trap was organised. During the trap proceedings, the tainted currency notes were allegedly recovered from the appellant and both his hand wash and pocket wash tested positive. On this basis, the trial Court convicted the appellant.

Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to establish the indispensable ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The complainant and the shadow witness, who was also the complainant’s son, completely disowned the prosecution case during trial. Both categorically denied that the appellant had demanded or accepted any bribe and instead attributed the alleged demand to other officials of the Electricity Department, particularly the concerned Junior Engineer. They further denied the prosecution’s version regarding payment and recovery of the tainted currency notes. The appellant argued that in the absence of proof of demand, mere recovery of tainted money could not sustain his conviction nor justify invocation of the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

After analysing the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational facts necessary for conviction. It observed that the complainant and the shadow witness were the most material witnesses on the question of demand and acceptance, yet both unequivocally exonerated the appellant. Although the official witnesses proved the recovery proceedings and positive chemical tests, their testimony merely established the trap proceedings and recovery of currency notes; it did not establish that the appellant had demanded or voluntarily accepted illegal gratification. The Court reiterated the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj, P. Satyanarayana Murthy and the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta, holding that proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and recovery alone cannot form the basis of conviction.

The Court also found that the prosecution had failed to establish any nexus between the appellant and the official work concerning the complainant. Documentary evidence produced through prosecution witnesses revealed that the inspection of the complainant’s premises had actually been carried out by the concerned Junior Engineer and Lineman, while defence evidence showed that the appellant’s duties related to maintenance of electricity infrastructure rather than consumer inspections. The trial Court, however, failed to properly appreciate this evidence and incorrectly invoked the statutory presumption under Section 20 solely on the basis of recovery. Holding that the prosecution had not proved demand, voluntary acceptance, or the necessary connection between the alleged gratification and any public duty of the appellant, the High Court concluded that the conviction was unsustainable and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

Decision: Allowing the appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Kurukshetra. The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.