Mere Recovery of Tainted Money Cannot Prove Bribery Without Demand and Acceptance: Supreme Court Acquits Public Servant

The complainant (PW-1) was appointed an orderly at the Government High School, Sirum, on 1 February 2010 but was not paid. He alleged that the appellant, an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella, demanded ₹5,000 to release his salary, and complained to the Vigilance Bureau on 19 April 2010 (paras 4.1-4.2). A trap was laid on 20 May 2010 with phenolphthalein-treated notes (paras 9-10). The Special Judge, Chaibasa convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) and imposed four years' rigorous imprisonment and a ₹10,000 fine on each count, concurrently; the Jharkhand High Court affirmed on 21 July 2022 (opening paragraph, para 2). He had served the sentence before the appeal was heard (para 3).

The Court found "inconsistencies galore" (para 18). The appellant and PW-1 left the office together and the money was allegedly paid at the appellant's residence. Some witnesses said he was caught there; others said the team arrested him in the office and then took him home, where the notes were recovered from under his bed or pillow (paras 10-13, 18). Trap witnesses admitted they did not see the money pass (paras 12.1, 16.1, 17.1), and two office clerks said they signed papers on the vigilance officials' direction without seeing any recovery (paras 14.1, 15). Crucially, none of the witnesses saw the demand or the payment; there was only PW-1's uncorroborated testimony (para 18). Applying P. Satyanarayana Murthy, the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta, Aman Bhatia and its recent ruling in Jaswinder Singh, the Court reiterated that proof of demand is the sine qua non and mere recovery of tainted money is not enough (paras 19-22). Demand and acceptance were not proved, let alone beyond reasonable doubt (paras 23-24).