Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set Aside- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 28 March 2014
- Bench
- Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i), 13(1)(d)(ii), 13(2), 20
Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2), imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court on 25 April 2011, were set aside (para 10).
Source Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 28 March 2014 · Court's copy
Key holdings
- Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non of the offence under Section 7 (para 7).
- Mere possession and recovery of currency notes, without proof of demand, do not make out Section 7 (para 8).
- Without proof of demand, the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is not established either (para 8).
- Where the complainant turns hostile and no other witness proves demand, the complaint and the panch witness’s account of it do not prove it (para 8).
- The Section 20 presumption applies only to Section 7, and only once acceptance, which follows from demand, is proved (para 9).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
In trap cases this is usually the first ruling the defence cites: when the complainant turns hostile, the prosecution must still prove demand by other evidence, because recovery of the notes and the Section 20 presumption cannot fill that gap (paras 8-9). Prosecutors should therefore lead any independent evidence of demand at the trial. The Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) later held that this ruling does not conflict with the line of cases on proving demand when the complainant’s primary evidence is unavailable; P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police restated its rule.
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
Precedents Relied Upon
- C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1
Cited as an illustration of the settled position that demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non of the offence under Section 7, and that mere recovery of currency notes does not constitute it (para 7).
- C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. (2009) 3 SCC 779
Cited with C.M. Sharma for the same settled position: without proof that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe, recovery alone does not make out Section 7 (para 7).
