Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe Must Be Proved; Recovery Not Enough: Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Revenue Officer Over ₹5K Bribe
Reiterating that proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) has upheld the acquittal of a Revenue Officer accused of accepting a ₹5,000 bribe for processing a land mutation application.Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed the State's appeal...
Reiterating that proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) has upheld the acquittal of a Revenue Officer accused of accepting a ₹5,000 bribe for processing a land mutation application.
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal, observing that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to raise the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court held that mere recovery of tainted money or trap formalities, without credible proof of demand and acceptance, cannot sustain conviction.
The Court emphasised: “In this type of case the prosecution is under a heavy duty to prove both demand and acceptance of bribes.”
The respondent, a Revenue Officer and Patwari, was accused of demanding ₹5,000 from the complainant for mutation of land records. Acting on the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Unit laid a trap and allegedly caught the accused red-handed.
The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, contending that the trial court erred in overlooking their evidence and wrongly acquitted the accused of offences under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The defence argued that the mutation had already been completed before the complaint was lodged, casting doubt on the motive for bribery. It was further contended that the shadow witnesses did not support the prosecution, no one saw the alleged demand or acceptance, and post-trap procedures were doubtful.
Court's Analysis
After examining the record, the High Court found serious gaps in the prosecution case.
Both shadow witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3), who were expected to corroborate the trap, failed to support the prosecution. PW-2 was declared hostile, while PW-3 did not depose about witnessing either the demand or acceptance of bribe. Some witnesses admitted signing documents at the police station rather than at the spot.
The Court noted that not a single independent witness confirmed the demand or receipt of illegal gratification.
It further found deficiencies in the scientific evidence. The CFSL expert's report did not clearly mention the source of samples, custody details, specimen seals, number of currency notes, or proper resealing of exhibits. The chemical examination procedure was thus rendered doubtful.
Significantly, the Court also recorded that mutation of the land had already taken place prior to the complaint, weakening the prosecution's theory of motive.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including C. Sukumaran, P. Satyanarayana Murthy, K. Shanthamma, Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi and the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta, the Court reiterated that recovery alone is insufficient and that presumption under Section 20 arises only after foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved.
The Court observed that since those foundational facts were not established, the accused could not be called upon to rebut any presumption.
Case Title: State v. M. Hari Krishna
Case No.: CRA/7/2025 (IA No. CRAN/1/2025)