Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set Aside- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 6 November 2026
- Bench
- Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 65-B; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 481
Appeal allowed. The judgment and sentence of 18 November 2019 were set aside and the appellant acquitted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2). He must give a Rs 1 lakh bond and surety under Section 481 BNSS within two months, for any special leave petition (p. 29).
Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment pronounced on 6 November 2026
Key holdings
- Demand and voluntary acceptance are the foundation of a Section 7 offence; recovery alone is not enough (pp. 21-22).
- With no pending official work and shifting amounts and dates, the alleged demand was not proved (p. 24).
- A colour change after notes are forced on an accused does not show voluntary acceptance (p. 26).
- Recordings without sealing, voice identification, call records or a Section 65-B certificate could not prove the demand (pp. 26-27).
- Without proof of demand and acceptance, the Section 20 presumption does not arise (p. 28).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Questions before the Court (framed by NyayVidhan)
- Was official work pending with the appellant, and did he demand and voluntarily accept a bribe?
- Do the recovery and the phenolphthalein test prove demand and acceptance?
- Were the recordings, CD and transcripts reliable evidence?
- Did the trial court appraise the evidence correctly?
Submissions
For the appellant. No official work was pending with him and no demand was proved. After he led a JDA encroachment drive on 14 July 2006, a man pursuing the encroachers' cause threatened him and used the complainant to lodge a false complaint, written by that man (p. 4). Key witnesses turned hostile; recovery accounts conflicted; the notes touched him only when forced on him; the recordings were unsealed and uncertified under Section 65-B; and the demand varied from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 9,000 (pp. 5-7).
For the State. Hostile complainants do not discredit the whole case; the trap, the independent witnesses, the recovery and the chemical test proved demand and acceptance (p. 10).
Court's Findings
No pending work and no proved demand
Demand and voluntary acceptance are essential to Section 7, and mere recovery cannot sustain a conviction, the Court held, following B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy; under Neeraj Dutta demand may be proved circumstantially, but no complete chain existed here (pp. 21-22). The demand story varied in amounts and dates, which the trap officer admitted (p. 24). The complainant and his relative denied any demand; no trap witness confirmed any foundation or building material, the site plan did not support it, and no application, permission or other pending official work was proved (pp. 11-12, 24).
Recovery and the chemical test
No independent witness saw or heard the transaction, and their accounts placed the notes in a trouser pocket, a shirt pocket and on the ground (pp. 13-14, 25). The complainant's side admitted the notes were forced on him; an involuntary touch and a colour change could not prove voluntary acceptance, and the chemical test alone cannot ground a conviction when conscious possession is unproved (p. 26).
The recordings
The witnesses had not heard the calls; transcripts and running notes clashed on dates and times; the voice was not scientifically identified; phones and SIM cards were not seized nor call records obtained; the material was not kept sealed; and no Section 65-B certificate was given. A missing certificate is not fatal in every case, the Court accepted, but here the recordings could not reliably prove the demand (pp. 26-27).
The trial court's appraisal
Defence evidence of the encroachment drive and of threats raised what the Court called a reasonable possibility that ill will lay behind the complaint (p. 27). The doubts were real, not technical; without these primary facts the Section 20 presumption did not arise, and the conviction rested on conjecture (p. 28).
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
The ruling applies the demand-first rule of B. Jayaraj and the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta to a typical trap case: once the complainant turns hostile, demand must be proved by other reliable evidence, and a recovery that follows notes being forced on an officer does not show acceptance (pp. 22, 26). It also lists what courts look for in recorded-call evidence: a sealed recorder, a Section 65-B certificate from whoever made the CD, voice identification and call records (pp. 26-27). The Court did not hold the complaint false; it found only a reasonable possibility that ill will lay behind it (p. 27).
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
Precedents Relied Upon
- B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55
Paras 7 and 9 quoted: demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for Section 7 and mere recovery of notes is not enough unless voluntary acceptance knowing it to be a bribe is proved; the Section 20 presumption arises only on proof of acceptance, which follows only from proof of demand. Followed in holding demand and acceptance unproved (pp. 21, 28). Printed as '(2014) 13 SC 55'.
- P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. AIR 2015 SC 3549
Paras 18-20 quoted: demand and acceptance are vital ingredients to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; mere possession and recovery of notes without proof of demand does not establish Sections 7 or 13(1)(d), and without proof of demand the Section 20 presumption does not arise. Applied with B. Jayaraj (pp. 21-22).
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731
Constitution Bench: demand may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, but its proof is basic to the offence; the court must examine whether the circumstantial evidence forms a complete, consistent and reliable chain. The Court found no such chain here (p. 22).
View all precedents (9)
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
Its principles on the authenticity and lawful certification of electronic evidence held relevant; gaps in the source, preservation, certification and custody of the recordings went to their reliability (pp. 23, 26-27).
- Krishna Chander v. State of Delhi (2016) 3 SCC 108
Noted with N. Sunkanna and Sukumaran as stressing the reliability and overall appraisal of the evidence on demand and acceptance (p. 23).
- N. Sunkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR (2015) SC (CRI) 56 (as printed in the appellant's list, p. 10)
Noted with Krishna Chander and Sukumaran as stressing the reliability and overall appraisal of the evidence on demand and acceptance (p. 23).
- Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 314
Noted with Krishna Chander and N. Sunkanna as stressing the reliability and overall appraisal of the evidence on demand and acceptance (p. 23).
- S.K. Saini v. CBI Criminal Appeal No. 159/2005
Cited by the appellant; the Court noted that it rests on the same principles, stressing an overall appraisal of the evidence (p. 23).
- Rattaram v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1018/2018 (Rajasthan High Court)
Cited by the appellant; the Court noted that it rests on the same principles, stressing an overall appraisal of the evidence (p. 23).
