Judgment Intelligence
Other- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 4 September 2023
- Bench
- Justice Ashok Kumar Jain
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120-B, 201; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 164, 313, 437-A
The State's appeal against Rameshwar Singh's acquittal (No. 408/2018) was dismissed. Bhim Singh's appeal (No. 587/2016) was dismissed; his conviction and sentence stand and he must surrender. Veeri Singh's appeal (No. 604/2016) was allowed and he was acquitted, subject to a Section 437-A CrPC bond (para 55; closing directions).
Key holdings
- Demand is a sine qua non for Section 7; recovery alone is not enough without proof of knowing, voluntary acceptance (para 32).
- The Section 20 presumption follows only proof of the offence’s essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt (paras 36, 50).
- An unverified demand, absence at the trap and no link to the payment acquitted the ASI (paras 33-35, 37).
- Returning the money, without proof of knowing it was a bribe, could not reverse the acquittal (paras 40, 44).
- A constable who took the bribe for the SHO was guilty without a demand of his own (paras 46, 50-52).
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
Precedents Relied Upon
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC Online SC 1724
Constitution Bench: demand and acceptance must be proved as facts in issue, directly or by circumstantial evidence; a presumption of fact arises only when the foundational facts are proved; Section 20 then mandates a rebuttable legal presumption; a hostile complainant does not end the trial.
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 1669/2009, Order dated 17.03.2023
Decided after the Constitution Bench answer: demand and acceptance by a public servant must be established beyond reasonable doubt; the Constitution Bench decision does not dilute that requirement.
- B. Jayaraj v. State of Andra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55
Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for Section 7; mere possession or recovery of the money is not enough unless voluntary acceptance knowing it to be a bribe is proved.
View all precedents (33)
- K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana (2022) 4 SCC 574
Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute the offence under Section 7.
- C. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala 2015 CrLR SC 382
Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute the offence under Section 7.
- Union of India v. Purnandi Biswas (2005) 12 SCC 576
The presumption about acceptance of illegal gratification arises only when demand is proved; before the Section 20 presumption is drawn the essential ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- V. Venkata Subbarao v. State (2006) 13 SCC 305
Before the Section 20 presumption is drawn, the essential ingredients of the offence must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
- C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779
Before the Section 20 presumption is drawn, the essential ingredients of the offence must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
- P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142
Criminal conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, but evidence of a meeting of minds and an agreement is necessary; mere knowledge or discussion is not enough.
- Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 6 SCC 564
Criminal conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, but evidence of a meeting of minds and an agreement is necessary.
- CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal AIR 2014 SC 827
Relied on by the appellant against the prosecution sanction; the Court held the principle inapplicable because the sanction against Bhim Singh was granted on the available material without abnormality.
- Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415
In an appeal against acquittal there is a double presumption in favour of the accused: the presumption of innocence, reinforced by the acquittal.
- Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka 2021 (5) SCC 222
Double presumption in favour of the accused in an appeal against acquittal.
- Rajesh Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2022) 3 SCC 407
Double presumption in favour of the accused in an appeal against acquittal.
- Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 807
The appellate court has full power to review and re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal but must keep the double presumption in favour of the accused in mind.
- Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan 1961 AIR SC 715
Full appellate power to re-appreciate evidence against an acquittal, subject to the double presumption.
- M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra 1963 AIR SC 200
Full appellate power to re-appreciate evidence against an acquittal, subject to the double presumption.
- Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
Full appellate power to re-appreciate evidence against an acquittal, subject to the double presumption.
- Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225
Full appellate power to re-appreciate evidence against an acquittal, subject to the double presumption.
- Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 110
Full appellate power to re-appreciate evidence against an acquittal, subject to the double presumption.
- Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 12 SCC 351
Full appellate power to re-appreciate evidence against an acquittal, subject to the double presumption.
- P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152
Mentioned as one of the three-judge decisions whose conflict with M. Narsinga Rao led to the Constitution Bench reference in Neeraj Dutta.
- M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691
Earlier three-judge decision whose conflict with B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy led to the Constitution Bench reference in Neeraj Dutta.
- K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721
Cited by counsel for the appellants: demand is a sine qua non for Section 7 and mere possession of currency notes is not enough.
- M.R. Purushottam v. State of Karnataka 2015 CrLJ 72 (SC)
Cited by counsel for the appellants: demand is a sine qua non; where the complainant turns hostile and there is no other evidence, demand and acceptance are not proved.
- State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma (2013) 14 SCC 153
Cited by counsel for the parties.
- Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. CBI AIR 2018 SC 4120
Cited by counsel for the parties.
- Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh 1986 AIR SC 3
Cited by counsel: a tape-recorded conversation is admissible only with proof of time, place and accuracy of the recording and identification of the voices, subject to safeguards.
- R. Venkatesan v. State 1980 CriLJ 41
Cited by counsel on proof of tape-recorded conversations.
- Nanhku Singh v. State of Bihar 1972 CrLJ 1204 (SC)
Cited by counsel: an FIR is not substantive evidence and can be used only to corroborate or contradict its maker.
- Shanker v. State of U.P. 1975 CrLJ 634 (SC)
Cited by counsel: an FIR is not substantive evidence.
- State of Karnataka v. P. Ravi Kumar @ Ravi & Ors. (2018) 9 SCC 614
Cited by counsel: a Section 164 CrPC statement of a witness declared hostile is not substantive evidence on which a conviction can rest.
- Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan 1998 CrLJ 3155
Cited by counsel: a coordinate Bench held that where no work of the complainant was pending with the accused, he could not be held guilty of taking a bribe.
