The Supreme Court has stressed that Bribery Demand Proof is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court acquitted former Education Department Assistant Ajit Kumar in a 16-year-old bribery case. It found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment in Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand.
Kumar pursued his appeal to clear his name even after serving his entire four-year sentence and paying the fine.
Demand Is Essential for PC Act Conviction
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan authored the judgment. The Court reiterated that proof of demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
The Bench relied on P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Court explained that mere acceptance or recovery of money cannot establish the offence. The prosecution must independently prove the demand for illegal gratification.
Therefore, recovery of tainted currency alone cannot support a conviction under Sections 7 or 13.
₹5,000 Bribe Allegation Against Assistant
The case dates back to 2010. At the time, Ajit Kumar worked as an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella, Jharkhand.
Complainant Durgapad Singh Munda (PW 1) worked as an orderly at Government High School, Sirum. He alleged that Kumar demanded ₹5,000 to facilitate the release of his pending salary.
Following the complaint, the Vigilance Bureau organised a trap on May 20, 2010. Officials recovered chemically treated currency notes worth ₹5,000.
Trial Court Sentenced Kumar to Four Years
On February 27, 2021, the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa convicted Kumar.
The trial court imposed a concurrent sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment. It also imposed a ₹10,000 fine under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act.
The Jharkhand High Court affirmed the conviction on July 21, 2022. Kumar then approached the Supreme Court.
Appellant Challenges Prosecution Evidence
Before the Supreme Court, Kumar’s counsel challenged the reliability of the prosecution case.
The defence argued that the conviction primarily rested on the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony. According to the defence, the alleged transaction occurred at Kumar’s residence.
No independent shadow witness or member of the trap team witnessed the alleged payment.
The State of Jharkhand argued that minor discrepancies could not undermine the conviction. It also submitted that the appeal had become academic because Kumar had already served his sentence.
Supreme Court Finds Major Contradictions
The Supreme Court examined the trial records and found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.
Some witnesses claimed that officials apprehended Kumar at his residence. Others stated that officials first intercepted him at his office and later took him home.
The witnesses also gave conflicting accounts about the recovery. According to one version, officials recovered the money from beneath a pillow at Kumar’s residence.
PW 5 admitted during cross-examination that he did not witness the complainant handing over the money. He also confirmed that officials made no recovery at the office.
Witnesses Raise Questions Over Recovery
The Court also considered the evidence of PW 8 and PW 9. Both worked in the District Education Office.
They stated that vigilance officials instructed them to sign documents. PW 9 further testified that he spoke about the residential recovery under police directions.
These statements raised further concerns about the prosecution’s version of events.
Most importantly, the Investigating Officer (PW 11) admitted that no witness had personally seen Kumar demand or receive the alleged bribe.
Mere Recovery Cannot Establish Guilt
The Supreme Court held that recovery of tainted currency cannot replace proof of demand and acceptance.
The prosecution had to establish those foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence before the Court failed to meet that standard.
The ruling reinforces that Bribery Demand Proof remains a mandatory requirement for establishing the alleged corruption offence in such circumstances.
Supreme Court Acquits Ajit Kumar
The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s 2022 judgment. It also overturned the trial court’s 2021 conviction order.
The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against Ajit Kumar. It consequently acquitted him of the allegations.
The decision cleared Kumar of the conviction despite the fact that he had already completed his four-year prison sentence and paid the fine.
