The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not enable the court to convict the accused. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja observed, “Thus, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not enable the court to convict the accused. In the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.”

Advocate Ankur Thakur represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Ajay Kochhar represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

An Appeal was filed against the order of the Trial Court in a Corruption Case, whereby the accused was acquitted under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Respondent was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 3000 from the complainant. The Respondent was posted as Block Forest Officer in the year 2010 and during that time the complainant was engaged for felling and sawing of timber and Killour Majari beat was open for felling trees from the private land.

It was contended by the Appellant-State that the Trail Court has failed to appreciate that the accused demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant. While the Respondent pointed out that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court had rightly acquitted him on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence. It was contended that various contradictions and infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond the scope of reasonable doubt.

Court’s Observation

The question before the Court was whether the mandatory requirements to bring the accused under the purview of Sections 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, have been followed or not?

The High Court underscored, “It is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of the bribe money by itself cannot bring home the charge for the offences punishable under Section 7 or 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove demand of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the bribe money, as has been held in a catena of judgments passed by the Apex Court. It is also a settled principle of law that suspicion, however grave cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved".

The High Court referred to the catena of Judgments and observed that the mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not enable the court to convict the accused.

“ In the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality for an offence under Sections 7and 13 of the PC Act”, the Court held.

Accordingly, given the inconsistencies, contradictions and discrepancies in the case lead to an inference that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case of demand and acceptance of bribe

The High Court opined that neither demand nor acceptance of the bribe money has been proved. In the absence of demand of any illegal gratification and acceptance thereof, it was clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused

Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh V. Hari Saran (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:31442)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Ankush Thakur, Swati Draik, Shalabh Thakur

Respondents: Senior Advocate Ajay Kochhar and Advocate Anubhav Chopra

Click here to read/download Judgment


Himachal Pradesh High CourtJustice Sushil Kukreja

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.