Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe Sufficient To Attract PC Act Even If Public Servant Lacks Authority To Do Favour: Rajasthan High Court

While rejecting a quashing petition in relation to an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (2018 Act), Rajasthan High Court held that the provision did not require that the concerned public servant was actually in a position to do the official act.

The bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur observed that for the purpose of this offence, it was enough if the public servant accepted the gratification by inducing a belief that s/he would assist the giver with any other public servant, and the giver actually gave the gratification under that belief.

The petition was filed by a public servant who contended that no work was pending with him, and that the recording of the telephonic conversation required strict proof, and could not be relied upon.

On the contrary, it was argued by the State that the telephonic conversation between the complainant, petitioner and the middleman prima facie established demand of the bribe. Further, the phenolphthalein test of the petitioner as well as the middlemen were also found to be positive.

After hearing the contentions, the Court took into account the telephonic conversation, recovery of money from the petitioner and the middlemen, as well as the positive phenolphthalein test, and stated, that clearly disclosed sufficient material to constitute offence under the 2018 Act.

In relation to the argument of no work pending with the petitioner, the Court held that it was not a valid ground to quash the FIR. It was opined that even if the work had to be performed by some other officer, the demand in itself constituted an offence under the 2018 Act.

Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of Gujarat to hold that,

“Section does not require that the public servant must be in a position to do the official act, favour or service at the time of the demand or receipt of the gratification. To constitute an offence under this Section it is enough if the public servant who accepts the gratification takes it by inducing a belief or by holding out that he would render assistance to the giver "with any other public servant" and the giver gives the gratification under that belief.”

In this background, it was held that at this stage, the Court only had to see prima facie existence of the offence, which was established.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Jagdish Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 162

Click Here To Read/Download Order