Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Kurre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11712
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2674 of 2025
Suresh Kurre S/o Late Atmaram Kurre Aged About 39 Years Labour
Inspector- Office Of Labour Officer Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) R/o
Quarter Nagar 106, Sector-4, Balco Nagar Korba, District- Korba (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Acb/eow, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.) Unit- ACB Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Ganshyam Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Judgment on Board
11/03/2026
1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jashpur, District Jashpur
RAHUL
DEWANGAN (C.G.) in Special Case (ACB) No.01/2021, whereby the appellant
Digitally
signed by has been convicted under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03
years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further
undergo RI for 06 months.
2
2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any
iota of evidence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification
other than legal remuneration by the public servant by abusing his
office, the Special Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant
as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Ramesh
Kumar Yadav submitted a written complaint on 26.09.2019 before
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Bilaspur alleging that he was running an institution in the name and
style of “Chhattisgarh Abhinandan Educational and Social Welfare
Society, Kotba.” It was stated that the Labour Department, District
Jashpur had granted administrative approval vide order dated
02.05.2018 for conducting training under the courses of Mason
General and Assistant Electrician. Pursuant thereto, the
complainant conducted training for about 320 persons within
District Jashpur and thereafter claimed payment of training fees
from the department. It was alleged that the accused/appellant
Suresh Kurre, who was posted as Labour Inspector at the relevant
time, demanded 10% illegal gratification from the complainant for
processing the payment. It was further alleged that earlier a cheque
of Rs.7,23,492/- had been issued in favour of the complainant’s
institution and in consideration thereof the accused had already
received Rs.1,50,000/- as illegal gratification. It was further alleged
that an amount of Rs.6,37,000/- was still payable to the complainant
by the department. When the complainant met the accused in his
office on 24.09.2019 and requested for release of the said amount,
3
the accused allegedly demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as illegal
gratification for preparing the note-sheet and placing it before the
competent authority for approval of the cheque.
4. Since the complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe and intended
to have the accused caught red-handed, he approached the Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur and lodged the aforesaid complaint.
On receipt of the complaint, Inspector Pramod Kumar Khes handed
over a digital voice recorder to the complainant and directed him to
meet the accused and record the conversation relating to the
demand of illegal gratification. In pursuance of the said instructions,
the complainant met the accused on 27.09.2019 near his official
residence and requested him to reduce the demanded amount. At
that time, the accused allegedly stated that instead of
Rs.1,00,000/-, the complainant would now have to pay
Rs.1,90,000/-, stating that he intended to purchase a Java
motorcycle. The conversation relating to the demand of illegal
gratification was recorded by the complainant in the digital voice
recorder and he informed the ACB officials accordingly.
5. Subsequently, on 12.10.2019, the complainant informed the ACB
officials that the accused was repeatedly calling him and demanding
the money. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the
entire amount at once, the accused allegedly agreed to accept the
amount in instalments. The complainant informed him that he could
arrange only Rs.40,000/-, whereupon the accused directed him to
bring the said amount on 14.10.2019. Acting upon the said
information, the complainant was instructed to appear on
4
14.10.2019 at about 9:00 AM at the PWD Rest House, Jashpur
along with the digital voice recorder, the bribe amount of
Rs.40,000/- and a second written complaint, whereafter the trap
proceedings were conducted by the ACB officials.
6. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.25/2019 was registered
against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
During the course of investigation, the relevant documents including
the service records and posting orders of the accused were
collected and sanction for prosecution was obtained from the
competent authority. Statements of witnesses were recorded, the
spot map was prepared and the accused was arrested. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
competent Court which came to be registered as Special Case
No.01/2021.
7. During trial, the learned Special Judge framed charge against the
accused/appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 on 18.03.2021, which was read over and explained to the
accused, who denied the same and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution
has examined as many as twelve witnesses and exhibited several
documents including the First Information Report, written complaint,
seizure memos, trap proceedings, transcripts of recorded
conversations, recovery memos of currency notes, FSL report, call
detail records and certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian
5
Evidence Act, which were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-54.
9. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused examined himself as
Defence Witness No.1 and also produced certain documents in his
defence, which were exhibited as Exhibits D-1 to D-17.
10. It is also noted that since the sanction order dated 18.03.2020 had
not been formally exhibited during trial, the same was subsequently
marked as Exhibit P-55 for the purpose of reference in the
judgment.
11. After consideration, the accused claimed to be innocent and alleged
that he had been falsely implicated by the complainant due to a
previous animosity. As per the evidence of PW-8 (Investigating
Officer), PW-11 was a member of the trap party who conducted the
pre-trap demonstration and allegedly caught the hand of the
appellant at the time of trap. However, the alleged shadow
witnesses PW-3 and PW-6 have categorically stated that they were
standing at some distance from the place of occurrence and did not
see the complainant handing over the money or the appellant
accepting the same, and they reached the spot only after receiving
a call from PW-8. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the
essential ingredients of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal
gratification. Moreover, PW-4 (Labour Officer) clearly stated that he
was the competent authority to process and release the bills and
that no bill of the complainant was pending with the department,
rather an amount of about Rs.7,00,000/- was recoverable from the
6
complainant. Therefore, the appellant, being a Labour Inspector,
was not competent to release the bills and there was no occasion
for him to demand any illegal gratification. The prosecution also
failed to produce and play the compact disc (CD) on the basis of
which the transcripts Exhibits P-16 and P-17 were prepared. Thus,
the prosecution has failed to prove the twin requirements of demand
and acceptance, and mere recovery of tainted currency cannot
sustain the conviction. However, the learned Special Court, without
properly appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the
appellant and sentenced him as aforementioned, which is liable to
be set aside. Hence, the present appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
trial court is bad in law as well as on facts and is liable to be set
aside. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the
sanction for prosecution in accordance with law, as the sanctioning
authority has neither been examined before the court nor the
sanction order has been duly proved and exhibited, thereby
seriously prejudicing the valuable right of the appellant to cross-
examine the sanctioning authority. It is further submitted that the
essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, namely demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal
gratification, have not been established by the prosecution. The
appellant was merely working as a Labour Inspector and as per the
departmental procedure only the Labour Officer was competent to
process and release the bills, therefore the appellant had no
7
authority to release the bill of the complainant and there was no
occasion or motive for him to demand any illegal gratification from
the complainant.
13. It is further submitted that the prosecution has mainly relied upon
the alleged recorded conversation and its transcripts (Exhibits P-16
and P-17), which are only secondary evidence and cannot be
treated as primary proof of the alleged demand and acceptance.
The alleged compact disc (CD) containing the conversation was
neither properly proved nor played before the court and no scientific
examination such as FSL analysis or voice sampling of the
complainant and the appellant was conducted to establish its
authenticity. The evidence on record also shows material
contradictions regarding the seizure and custody of the alleged
recording, as the complainant kept the recording in his possession
for a considerable period before handing it over, thereby creating
serious doubt about the possibility of tampering. Even the shadow
witnesses PW-3 and PW-6 have not supported the prosecution
case and have categorically stated that the transcription was not
prepared in their presence and that they did not witness the alleged
demand or acceptance of bribe. The trap party members were
standing at a considerable distance from the alleged place of
occurrence and reached the spot only after receiving information,
therefore none of them actually witnessed the alleged transaction.
14. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery of tainted
currency notes by itself is not sufficient to constitute an offence
under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless the prosecution
8
proves the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification
beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case even the alleged
recovery itself is doubtful, as the phenolphthalein test with respect
to the pocket wash of the pant did not show the expected colour
change and the entire trap proceedings appear suspicious. It is also
submitted that the complainant had personal animosity against the
appellant because recovery proceedings of about Rs.7,00,000/-
had already been initiated against him for financial irregularities
committed in the training programme conducted through his NGO
and he was not entitled to receive any further payment from the
department. The investigation was conducted without proper
verification of the relevant documents and without examining the
alleged demand letters or bills, which further makes the prosecution
story doubtful.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant further places reliance upon
various judicial pronouncements to submit that in cases relating to
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution is
mandatorily required to establish the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification, which are the sine qua non for sustaining
conviction. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Shanthamma v. State of
Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574 (Paras 10, 11 & 17), wherein it has
been held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification is essential for constituting an offence under Section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and in absence of such proof,
conviction cannot be sustained. Further reliance is placed on
9
Rajesh Gupta v. State through CBI, (2022) 20 SCC 793 (Paras
17, 18, 19 & 22), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that
mere recovery of tainted currency is not sufficient to establish the
offence unless the prosecution proves the demand and voluntary
acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel
also relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa
in Satish Kumar Kajal v. State through CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine
Bom 465 (Paras 35, 36, 37 & 38), wherein it has been held that in
absence of clear and cogent evidence proving demand and
acceptance, conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act
cannot be sustained. Further reliance is placed upon the recent
decision of the Bombay High Court in Ravindra v. CBI and
Mohammad Salim v. CBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4833 (Paras
78, 79 & 82), wherein it has been held that mere recovery of tainted
currency or inconclusive electronic evidence, without proof of
demand and voluntary acceptance, is insufficient to sustain
conviction. On the strength of the aforesaid settled principles of law,
it is submitted that in the present case also the prosecution has
failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification, and therefore the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and submitted that the appellant has rightly been
convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 7 of the
10
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘P.C. Act‘).
17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment
impugned and record of the trial Court.
18. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the
parties.
19. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of the
complainant Ramesh Kumar Yadav (PW-2), who claims to be the
Secretary of an organization known as Chhattisgarh Abhinandan
Educational and Social Welfare Society, which was allegedly
engaged in conducting skill development training programmes
under the Mukhyamantri Kaushal Vikas Scheme implemented
through the Labour Department of the State Government. According
to the prosecution version, the said institution conducted training in
trades such as General Mason and Electrician for certain trainees
between the years 2017 to 2019, and after completion of the
training programme an amount of Rs.6,37,000/- was allegedly
payable to the complainant’s institution by the Labour Department.
It is the allegation of the complainant that when he approached the
office of the Labour Department at Jashpur for issuance of the
cheque towards the said amount, the accused Suresh Kurre, who
was posted as Labour Inspector at the relevant time, demanded
illegal gratification at the rate of 10% of the sanctioned amount. The
complainant has further alleged that on an earlier occasion when a
cheque amounting to Rs.7,23,492/- had been issued to his
11
institution, the accused had demanded illegal gratification and he
had paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused. According to
the complainant, when he again approached the accused for
issuance of the cheque of Rs.6,37,000/-, the accused demanded a
sum of Rs.1,90,000/- as illegal gratification and insisted that unless
the said amount was paid, the cheque would not be issued. Being
unwilling to pay the said bribe, the complainant approached the
Anti-Corruption Bureau at Bilaspur and submitted a written
complaint alleging demand of illegal gratification by the accused.
20. The complainant (PW-2) has further deposed that upon receiving
the complaint, the officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau instructed
him to record the conversation relating to the alleged demand of
bribe. For this purpose, he was provided with a digital voice
recorder and was asked to meet the accused and record the
conversation. According to him, he went to the residence of the
accused and recorded the conversation relating to the demand of
illegal gratification. Thereafter he returned to the ACB office and
handed over the recorder containing the alleged conversation.
Subsequently, a trap proceeding was organized on 14.10.2019.
The complainant has stated that he arranged an amount of
Rs.40,000/- which was to be paid as part of the alleged bribe
amount. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein
powder in the presence of independent witnesses and the
complainant was instructed to hand over the money to the accused
only upon demand. According to the prosecution version, the
complainant thereafter met the accused near the vehicle stand of
12
the Labour Office at Jashpur and upon demand by the accused he
handed over the amount of Rs.40,000/- to him. Immediately
thereafter the complainant gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap
team, whereupon the ACB officials rushed to the spot and
apprehended the accused and recovered the tainted currency notes
from his possession.
21. However, when the testimony of the complainant is examined in the
light of the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the defence,
several material aspects emerge which cast a serious doubt on the
reliability of the prosecution version. During cross-examination the
complainant admitted that prior to the lodging of the complaint he
himself had worked in the Labour Department as a Welfare Officer
through Call-Me Service Centre and during that period he had also
registered his own NGO and was conducting training programmes
through the said institution. He further admitted that certain
complaints had been made regarding financial irregularities in the
disbursement of stipend to the trainees and that the Labour
Department had initiated proceedings against him in that regard. It
has further come on record during cross-examination that the
department had passed a recovery order against the complainant
for an amount of approximately Rs.7,01,100/- on account of the
said irregularities. The complainant also admitted that he believed
that the accused was responsible for initiating departmental
proceedings against him. These admissions assume significance as
they clearly indicate that there existed prior disputes between the
complainant and the department and that the complainant had a
13
grievance against the accused. Another important aspect which
emerges from the cross-examination is that the complainant did not
produce any documentary material before the ACB to demonstrate
that the amount of Rs.6,37,000/- was actually due and payable to
his institution. He admitted that as per the departmental procedure
any payment under the scheme would require submission of a
formal claim, verification of records, preparation of note sheets and
approval by competent authorities. However, he was unable to
produce any document to show that such a claim had been
submitted or that the amount had been sanctioned for payment.
Thus the evidence of the complainant itself reveals that the alleged
demand of bribe was not supported by any official record showing
that the payment was actually pending.
22. Another important witness examined by the prosecution is Promod
Khes (PW-8), who at the relevant point of time was posted as
Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Anti-Corruption Bureau and
acted as the Trap Officer (Investigation Officer) in the present case.
The testimony of this witness is crucial for the prosecution because
the entire trap proceedings and the alleged recovery of tainted
currency from the accused are sought to be proved through him.
PW-8 has deposed that on 26.09.2019 the complainant Ramesh
Kumar Yadav approached the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau
and submitted a written complaint alleging that the accused Suresh
Kurre, who was posted as Labour Inspector at Jashpur, had
demanded illegal gratification for issuance of a cheque relating to
payment under the Mukhyamantri Kaushal Vikas Scheme.
14
According to this witness, after receiving the complaint he made
preliminary enquiries and thereafter decided to verify the allegation
of demand. For this purpose he provided a digital voice recorder to
the complainant and instructed him to meet the accused and record
the conversation relating to the demand of bribe. PW-8 has further
stated that the complainant thereafter met the accused and
recorded the alleged conversation and subsequently returned to the
office of ACB and handed over the recorder containing the said
recording. According to the trap officer, after listening to the
recorded conversation he was satisfied that there was prima facie
material indicating demand of illegal gratification by the accused
and therefore a trap proceeding was planned. He has further
deposed that on 14.10.2019 he constituted a trap team and called
two independent witnesses namely Dr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari (PW-3),
who was working as Assistant Professor in Government PG College
Jashpur, and Chetan Sahu (PW-6), who was working as Deputy
Collector, to act as panch witnesses in the trap proceedings. The
trap officer has stated that in their presence the complainant
produced an amount of Rs.40,000/-, which was to be used as the
bribe amount. The currency notes were then smeared with
phenolphthalein powder and a demonstration was given to the
witnesses explaining how the powder reacts with sodium carbonate
solution by turning pink in colour upon contact. According to PW-8,
the numbers of the currency notes were recorded in the pre-trap
memorandum and the complainant was instructed that he should
hand over the tainted currency to the accused only upon specific
demand of money and thereafter give a pre-arranged signal so that
15
the trap team could immediately apprehend the accused.
23. PW-8 has further deposed that thereafter the trap team proceeded
towards Jashpur and kept watch in the vicinity of the place where
the complainant was expected to meet the accused. According to
him, in the evening hours the complainant met the accused near the
vehicle stand of the Labour Office at Jashpur, whereafter the
complainant allegedly handed over the tainted currency to the
accused pursuant to the demand made by him. PW-8 has further
stated that immediately thereafter the complainant gave the pre-
arranged signal, upon which the trap team rushed to the spot and
apprehended the accused. The trap officer has further deposed that
upon apprehension of the accused, the hands of the accused were
washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned
pink, indicating the presence of phenolphthalein powder. He has
further stated that thereafter the tainted currency notes were
recovered from the possession of the accused and the numbers of
the notes were matched with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap
memorandum. According to the witness, the recovery proceedings
were documented through seizure memos and the recovered
articles were sealed and taken into custody. He has also stated that
thereafter the accused was formally arrested and the investigation
was carried out.
24. However, when the testimony of this witness is examined in the light
of the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the defence,
certain material aspects emerge which assume considerable
significance in evaluating the credibility of the prosecution case.
16
During cross-examination PW-8 admitted that before organizing the
trap he did not verify from the Labour Department whether any
amount was actually due and payable to the complainant under the
Mukhyamantri Kaushal Vikas Scheme. He further admitted that the
complainant had not produced any official record, bill, sanction
order, note sheet or payment order before the ACB to establish that
an amount of Rs.6,37,000/- was actually pending for payment from
the department. The witness also admitted that the alleged
recorded conversation was not sent to any forensic laboratory for
voice analysis in order to confirm whether the voices recorded
therein actually belonged to the complainant and the accused. He
further admitted that the independent witnesses associated with the
trap proceedings were standing at some distance from the
complainant at the time when the alleged transaction took place,
and therefore they could not hear the conversation between the
complainant and the accused. The trap officer also admitted that
apart from the statement of the complainant, no independent
witness had actually heard the accused demanding illegal
gratification. These admissions made by PW-8 during cross-
examination assume considerable importance because they
indicate that the most crucial ingredient of the offence, mainly the
demand of illegal gratification, rests solely upon the uncorroborated
testimony of the complainant and is not supported by the
independent witnesses who were present during the trap
proceedings.
25. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of independent
17
witnesses who were associated with the trap proceedings. Among
them Dr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) was called by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau as an independent panch witness. He was
working as an Assistant Professor in Government PG College,
Jashpur at the relevant time. According to the prosecution, he was
present at the time of preparation of phenolphthalein treated
currency notes and was also part of the trap team. However, when
this witness was examined before the learned trial Court, he did not
support the prosecution case in material particulars. He admitted
that he had been called to the Rest House where the ACB officials
explained the procedure of trap and treated the currency notes with
phenolphthalein powder, but he clearly stated that he did not hear
the accused demanding any bribe from the complainant. He further
stated that at the time when the complainant met the accused, he
was standing at some distance and therefore he could neither hear
the conversation between them nor could he clearly observe the
alleged transaction of money. Because of these statements the
prosecution declared him hostile. Even during cross-examination
conducted by the prosecution he maintained that he had not heard
any demand of illegal gratification being made by the accused. The
testimony of this witness therefore does not support the prosecution
case on the most crucial aspect of demand of bribe.
26. Similarly, the other independent witness Chetan Sahu (PW-6), who
was working as Deputy Collector at Jashpur, was also associated
with the trap proceedings as a panch witness. This witness has also
deposed about the preparatory proceedings conducted by the ACB
18
including the demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and
instructions given to the complainant. However, when questioned
regarding the actual transaction between the complainant and the
accused, he stated that he was standing at some distance and
therefore could not hear the conversation between them. He
categorically stated that he did not hear the accused making any
demand of money from the complainant and therefore he cannot
say whether the accused demanded the alleged amount of bribe.
He also admitted that he could not see clearly how the money was
allegedly handed over to the accused. Thus this witness also failed
to support the prosecution case on the essential ingredient of
demand of illegal gratification. The evidence of these two
independent witnesses therefore reveals that neither of them heard
the alleged demand nor did they clearly witness the acceptance of
money by the accused pursuant to such demand.
27. Thus, though PW-8 has described the procedural aspects of the
trap and the alleged recovery of tainted currency from the
possession of the accused, the evidence of this witness also
reveals that the verification of the complainant’s claim regarding the
pending payment was not undertaken, the recorded conversation
was not subjected to forensic examination, and the independent
witnesses were not in a position to hear the alleged demand of
illegal gratification. These aspects assume considerable
significance while assessing whether the prosecution has been able
to prove the foundational fact of demand of illegal gratification
beyond reasonable doubt.
19
28. The defence has also led evidence in the present case and
examined witnesses in support of its case. The accused has taken
a specific defence that he had not demanded any illegal gratification
from the complainant and that he has been falsely implicated
because the complainant was aggrieved by the departmental
proceedings initiated against him for financial irregularities in the
scheme. The defence evidence and the circumstances brought on
record during cross-examination indicate that the complainant had
a motive to falsely implicate the accused due to the recovery
proceedings initiated against him by the department. The defence
has further attempted to demonstrate that the alleged demand of
bribe has not been proved by any reliable and independent
evidence and that the prosecution case rests solely upon the
testimony of the complainant which is not corroborated by the
independent witnesses.
29. When the testimony of the complainantm, Ramesh Kumar (PW-2) is
examined in juxtaposition with the evidence of the independent
witnesses and the trap officer, certain material inconsistencies
emerge which go to the root of the prosecution case. The
prosecution has attempted to establish that the accused Suresh
Kurre, who was working as Labour Inspector at Jashpur, had
demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for issuance of
a cheque relating to payment under the Mukhyamantri Kaushal
Vikas Scheme. However, the evidence on record indicates that the
entire prosecution case regarding demand of illegal gratification
rests primarily upon the statement of the complainant alone. The
20
two independent witnesses who were associated with the trap
proceedings, namely Dr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) and Chetan
Sahu (PW-6), have not supported the prosecution on the most
crucial aspect of demand of illegal gratification. Both these
witnesses have categorically stated that they were standing at some
distance from the complainant, and therefore, could not hear the
conversation that allegedly took place between the complainant and
the accused. They have further stated that they did not hear the
accused making any demand for money from the complainant. The
testimony of these witnesses, therefore, clearly indicates that the
alleged demand of illegal gratification was not heard by any
independent witness and the prosecution has failed to produce any
independent corroboration regarding the demand of bribe.
30. A further careful reading of the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and
PW-8 reveals that there are material circumstances which create
serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case.
The complainant PW-2 has admitted during cross-examination that
he had earlier worked in the Labour Department through Call-Me
Service Centre and that he had also registered his own NGO
through which he was conducting training programmes under the
Mukhyamantri Kaushal Vikas Scheme. He has further admitted that
certain complaints had been made regarding irregularities in the
distribution of stipend to trainees and that the Labour Department
had initiated proceedings against him for financial irregularities. It
has also come on record that the department had passed a
recovery order against him for an amount of approximately
21
Rs.7,01,100/-. The complainant further admitted that he believed
that the accused was responsible for initiating departmental
proceedings against him. These admissions assume significance
because they clearly indicate that the complainant had a grievance
against the department and particularly against the accused,
thereby creating a possibility of false implication. Another important
circumstance which emerges from the cross-examination of the
complainant is that he was unable to produce any official record to
demonstrate that an amount of Rs.6,37,000/- was actually due and
payable to his institution. He admitted that as per departmental
procedure any payment would require submission of bills,
verification of records, preparation of note sheets and sanction by
competent authorities. However, he could not produce any
document to show that such a claim had been submitted or that the
amount had been sanctioned for payment. This aspect assumes
considerable importance because the alleged demand of bribe is
said to have been made for issuance of a cheque relating to this
amount, yet the prosecution has not been able to establish that such
payment was actually pending.
31. The testimony of the independent witnesses further weakens the
prosecution case. Dr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari (PW-3), who was
associated as an independent panch witness, has clearly stated
before the learned trial Court that although he was present during
the pre-trap proceedings and witnessed the demonstration of
phenolphthalein powder, he did not hear the accused demanding
any money from the complainant. He has also stated that he was
22
standing at a distance, and therefore, could not clearly see or hear
the alleged transaction. Because of these statements he was
declared hostile by the prosecution, yet even during cross-
examination by the prosecution he maintained that he had not heard
any demand of illegal gratification. Similarly, Chetan Sahu (PW-6),
who was working as Deputy Collector and was also associated as
an independent witness, has deposed that although he was present
during the trap proceedings, he did not hear the accused making
any demand of bribe from the complainant. He further stated that he
was standing at some distance from the complainant, and therefore,
could not hear the conversation between the complainant and the
accused. Thus both independent witnesses have failed to support
the prosecution case regarding the most crucial ingredient of
demand of illegal gratification.
32. The evidence of the trap officer Promod Khes (PW-8) also requires
careful scrutiny in this regard. While this witness has described the
procedural aspects of the trap proceedings and the alleged
recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the
accused, his cross-examination reveals certain significant
deficiencies in the investigation conducted by the Anti-Corruption
Bureau. The trap officer has admitted that before organizing the trap
he did not verify whether any amount was actually pending for
payment to the complainant from the Labour Department. He further
admitted that the complainant had not produced any official record
such as bills, sanction orders, note sheets or payment orders to
demonstrate that the amount of Rs.6,37,000/- was due. He also
23
admitted that the alleged recorded conversation between the
complainant and the accused was not sent to any forensic
laboratory for voice analysis. In the absence of such forensic
verification, the prosecution has not been able to conclusively
establish that the voices in the recorded conversation belonged to
the complainant and the accused. The trap officer has also admitted
that the independent witnesses were standing at some distance
from the complainant at the time when the alleged transaction took
place, and therefore, they could not hear the conversation between
the complainant and the accused. These admissions made by the
trap officer clearly indicate that the prosecution has not been able to
produce any reliable independent evidence regarding the demand
of illegal gratification by the accused.
33. In the matter of K. Shanthamma (supra), decided on 21.02.2022,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paras 10, 11 & 17 as
under:
“10. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. We have perused the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses. The offence under Section 7
of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe
requires a demand of illegal gratification and the
acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by
a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine
qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7
of the PC Act.
11. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P.2,
this Court has summarised the well-settled law on the
subject in para 23 which reads thus: (SCC p. 159)
24“23. The proof of demand of illegal
gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the
offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof,
unmistakably the charge therefor, would
fail. Mere acceptance of any amount
allegedly by way of illegal gratification or
recovery thereof, dehors the proof of
demand, ipso facto, would thus not be
sufficient to bring home the charge under
these two sections of the Act. As a
corollary, failure of the prosecution to
prove the demand for illegal gratification
would be fatal and mere recovery of the
amount from the person accused of the
offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act
would not entail his conviction
thereunder.”
17. Thus, the version of PW 1 in his examination-in-
chief about the demand 9 made by the appellant from
time to time is an improvement. As stated earlier, LW
8 did not enter the appellant’s chamber at the time of
trap. There is no other evidence of the alleged
demand. Thus, the evidence of PW 1 about the
demand for bribe by the appellant is not at all reliable.
Hence, we conclude that the demand made by the
appellant has not been conclusively proved.”
34. In the matter of Rajesh Gupta (supra), decided on 29.03.2022, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paras 17, 18, 19 & 22 as
under:
“17. In view of the above discussion, except for the
testimony of PW 3 Madhu Bala (complainant), there
is no corroborative evidence of demand, either on 7-
253-2000 or 9-3-2000. The law is well settled by the
judgments of d this Court in Panalal Damodar Rathi
v. State of Maharashtra {(1979) 4 SCC 526} and
Ayyasami v. State of T.N. {(1992) 1 SCC 304},
whereby it has been clarified that the sole testimony
of the complainant, who is the interested witness,
cannot be relied upon without having corroboration
with the independent evidence.
18. For an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act,
the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to
prove the guilt. Mere recovery of currency notes
cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of the
PC Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused voluntarily accepted the money,
knowing it to be a bribe. The proof of acceptance of
illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of
demand.
19. In view of the foregoing, there is no iota of
evidence by which the demand can be proved. Thus,
the conclusion of the trial court and the High Court to
prove the demand is based on surmises and erratic
approach ignoring the legal position as enunciated,
which cannot be sustained on the facts of the case.”
22. On the said issue, the judgments of this Court in
B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.6, C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI
are relevant, whereby this Court has clearly spelt out
that the recovery shall follow the proof of demand.
The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can
be drawn only when the demand is proved and the
money is voluntarily accepted, knowing the fact that
the said money has been delivered by way of bribe. In
the absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification
and mere possession or recovery of the currency
notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. It is
clarified that presumption under Section 20 of the PC
26
Act can be drawn only after demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification is proved beyond reasonable
doubt. In our considered opinion, the findings as
recorded by the trial court and the High Court,
drawing presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act,
are completely perverse in law. There is no evidence
to prove the demand and the acceptance. The theory
of preponderance of probabilities, as applied in this
case, is not sustainable and the finding of the High
Court is liable to be set aside.
35. In the matter of Satish Kumar Kajal (supra), decided on
08.03.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paras 35,
36, 37 & 38 as under:
“35. The aforesaid oral and documentary evidence
on record does not satisfy the tests laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram
Singh (supra), concerning conditions for admissibility
of a tape-recorded statement. In this case, the
evidence and material on record is not sufficient to
prove that the recorded voice of the speaker was duly
identified by the maker of the record. The witness
from the CFSL. i.e. P.w.3. Dr. Rajendra Singh,
admitted that he did not give a confirmatory opinion,
because spectrographic test could not be carried out.
The said witness gave his opinion of otherwise
confirming the voice of the Appellant on the basis of
copy of the original recording, while according to the
Investigating Officer, Pw.16. Anil Dabbas, the copy
was never sent to the CFSL with the originally
recorded micro cassette. As noted above, there is
nothing on record to show that the tapes were played
before the Court for examining the veracity of the
transcripts. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
27the tape-recorded conversations could not have been
relied upon to prove the prosecution case.
36. Even otherwise, the tape-recorded
conversations could have been relied upon, only as
corroborative evidence of conversation and in the
absence of direct evidence of any such conversation
in the form of a shadow witness deposing in that
regard, the tape-recorded conversation could not be
said to be admissible evidence and the same could
not be relied upon, as held by the Supreme Court in
the case of Mahabir Prasad Verma v. Dr Surinder
Kaur, (supra).
37. The manner in which the tape-recorded
conversations and the transcripts prepared on the
basis of the same, were sought to be brought before
the Court and relied upon by the prosecution, shows
that Rules framed for production, use and recording
tape-recorded evidence in Court, were not followed.
The said Rules mandate that the Court shall hear the
tape-recorded conversation in order to verify whether
the transcript produced along with the tape is correct
or not and endorse such verification on the transcript
record Thus, it becomes clear that the tape-recorded
conversations and the transcripts could not have
been relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case.
38. In this backdrop, it becomes clear, that in the
present case, the pre-trap panchanama as well as the
post- trap panchanama, prepared on the basis of
such tape-recorded conversations and transcripts,
suffered from the aforesaid defect and deficiency in
terms of proof expected under the relevant Rules and
the said position of law. In such a situation, the only
evidence pertaining to demand of illegal gratification
by the Appellant, was the testimony of the
complainant. A perusal of the evidence of the
28complainant- Pw 1 shows that it suffers from
contradictions when compared with written complaint
submitted to the CBI. In such cases involving trap
concerning offences under the aforesaid Act,
evidence of demand of illegal gratification coming
only from the complainant without any corroborative
evidence has to be treated as unsafe. In the present
case, there is no shadow witness and it is only the
sole testimony of the complainant pertaining to
demand of illegal gratification. The tape-recorded
conversation and the transcripts prepared on that
basis could be only corroborative evidence. But, as
noted above, the same could not have been relied
upon by the prosecution, in view of the serious
defects concerning tape-recorded conversations and
their proof. This indicates that in the present case,
there is lack of evidence to prove demand of illegal
gratification on the part of the Appellant.”
36. In the matter of Ravindra v. CBI and Mohammad Salim v. CBI
(Supra), decided on 02.12.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed in paras 78, 79 & 82 as under:
“78. To prove that the shadow witness must watch
the entire demand for gratification, failing which the
conviction may be set aside, the appellants’ Counsel
has relied on K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana,
(2022) 4 SCC 574. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that the prosecution’s case suffered a major
defect because the shadow witness, who was
explicitly instructed to accompany complainant into
the appellant’s chamber and observe the
conversation did not comply with this direction.
Instead, the witness waited in the corridor during the
crucial moment when the alleged bribe was
demanded and accepted. Both witnesses admitted
29
this lapse, and the prosecution did not explain the
witness’s failure to enter the chamber. As a result, the
witness was the sole witness to the alleged demand
and payment. Further Complaint’s own testimony
contained significant contradictions and
improvements, further weakening the prosecution’s
case. Since the independent shadow witness did not
witness the transaction and there was no
corroboration, the Court held that the alleged demand
was not reliably proved. The relevant paragraph is
reproduced below:
“14. PW 1 described how the trap was laid.
In the pre-trap mediator report, it has been
recorded that LW 8, Shri R. Hari Kishan,
was to accompany PW 1 – complainant at
the time of offering the bribe. PW 7 Shri
P.V.S.S.P. Raju deposed that PW 8 Shri
U.V.S. Raju, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, ACB, had instructed LW 8 to
accompany PW 1 complainant inside the
chamber of the appellant. PW 8 has
accepted this fact by stating in the
examination- in-chief that LW 8 was asked
to accompany PW 1 and observe what
transpires between the appellant and PW 1.
PW 8, in his evidence, accepted that only
PW 1 entered the chamber of the appellant
and LW 8 waited outside the chamber. Even
PW 7 admitted in the cross- examination
that when PW 1 entered the appellant’s
chamber, LW 8 remained outside in the
corridor. Thus, LW 8 was supposed to be an
independent witness accompanying PW 1.
In breach of the directions issued to him by
PW 8, he did not accompany PW 1 inside
30the chamber of the appellant, and he waited
outside the chamber in the corridor. The
prosecution offered no explanation why LW
8 did not accompany PW 1 inside the
chamber of the appellant at the time of the
trap”.
79. The prosecution failed to prove why the
investigating officer did not even attempt to send the
panch witness with the complainant to verify whether
the appellant, in fact, made the demand for illegal
gratification. The said negligent act by the
investigating officer is in direct contravention of the
CBI manual’s guidelines. Further, on the ground of
relevance of the audio recording, the appellants have
placed reliance on Rajesh Gupta v. State Through
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 20 SCC 793 –
wherein the Hon’ble Apex court has held that tape
recording is admissible only if the voice of the
speaker is identifiable, further it should be proved by
the prosecution must prove that the tampering or
distortion was not possible with the audio recording.
The relevant para is reproduced below:
“10. As regards the alleged demand at the
pre-trap stage, it is said to have been made
first time on 7-3-2000 through the Chartered
Accountant, namely, Mr. Rajiv Jain and
second time when complainant visited the
office of the appellant on the same date i.e.
7-3-2000 along with her employee, Krishan
Kumar. To prove the said two demands on
7-3-2000, neither Rajiv Jain, Chartered
Accountant nor Krishan Kumar (employee of
the complainant) have been examined in the
court. It is to be observed that before the
accused is called upon to explain the
31foundational fact of demand and
acceptance, it must be proved by the
prosecution by cogent evidence. The
testimony of the complainant, who is an
interested or partisan witness with the
success of trap, must be tested in the same
way as that of any other interested witness.
Except the testimony of PW 3 Madhu Balal,
no other material has been brought on
record to prove the said demand. Therefore,
in our considered view, pre-trap demand on
7-3-2000 has not been proved by the
prosecution, which is a foundational fact of
the case. In our view, the finding recorded by
the trial court to prove the pre-trap demand
i.e. on 7-3-2000 is without any evidence on
record and based on erratic evaluation,
which is mechanically confirmed by the High
Court”.
82. For proving the inadmissibility of the transcript,
reliance is placed on the Ramesh Thete v. State of
Madhya Pradesh Cri. Appeal No. 865 of 2007, which
this Court finds relevant in the present factual matrix.
Transcripts of conversation between complainant and
accused not acceptable in the absence of a tape-
recorded version. The relevant para is reproduced
below-
“25. As far as question of demand of bribe by
the accused is concerned, again there is sole
evidence of complainant (PW-3). We have
already discussed that there was no shadow
witness in the case. Therefore, whether any
demand was made by the accused at the time
of delivery of bribe money to accused, except
the evidence of complainant (PW-3), there is
32no other evidence. Though, according to
prosecution, complainant was given a micro
cassette recorder and he recorded the
conversation, which took place between him
and the accused, yet the said tape was not
found audible. In the absence of the said tape
recorded version, the transcript prepared by
the investigating officer and other witnesses
cannot be accepted.”
37. Upon a careful and comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence
on record, this Court finds that the foundational requirement for
establishing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
namely the proof of demand of illegal gratification, has not been
satisfactorily established by the prosecution. It is well settled that
demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence and
unless the prosecution proves such demand beyond reasonable
doubt, mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused
cannot lead to conviction. In the present case, the prosecution has
primarily relied upon the testimony of the complainant Ramesh
Kumar Yadav (PW-2) to establish the demand of illegal gratification
by the accused Suresh Kurre, who was posted as Labour Inspector
at the relevant time. However, the testimony of the complainant
does not receive corroboration from any independent source. On
the contrary, the independent witnesses associated with the trap
proceedings have failed to support the prosecution on the most
crucial aspect of demand of illegal gratification.
38. Both independent witnesses, namely Dr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari (PW-
3) and Chetan Sahu (PW-6), have categorically stated before the
33
learned trial Court that they did not hear the accused demanding
any money from the complainant. These witnesses were specifically
associated with the trap proceedings in order to lend credibility and
transparency to the process, yet their testimony clearly indicates
that they were standing at a distance and were unable to hear the
alleged conversation between the complainant and the accused.
Consequently, the alleged demand of illegal gratification is not
supported by any independent witness. The evidence of these
witnesses, therefore, creates a serious dent in the prosecution case
and renders the version of the complainant uncorroborated on the
most material aspect of the offence.
39. Another circumstance which assumes considerable significance is
the admission made by the complainant during cross-examination
that he had prior disputes with the department and that recovery
proceedings had been initiated against him on account of alleged
financial irregularities. He further admitted that he believed the
accused was responsible for initiating such departmental action.
These circumstances indicate a clear possibility of motive for false
implication of the accused. It has also come on record that the
complainant himself was appointed in the year 2017 as a Welfare
Officer in the office of the Labour Officer, Jashpur through a
placement agency namely Call Me Services and remained posted
till 01.12.2018, after which he was relieved on 11.12.2018. It is
further alleged that even thereafter he continued to run an institution
in the name of “Chhattisgarh Abhinandan Educational and Social
Welfare Society,” on the basis of which allegations of irregularities
34
were made against him. In this context, the official procedure
relating to training programmes assumes importance. The material
on record demonstrates that the entire process of submission of
claims, preparation of note-sheet, verification, approval by the
District Collector and final issuance of cheque is carried out by the
Labour Officer and other competent authorities. The role of the
Labour Inspector, if any, is confined only to physical verification of
the training programme upon directions of the Labour Officer, and
he has no role in processing, sanctioning or disbursing payments.
The prosecution has also failed to produce any document to
establish that the amount of Rs.6,37,000/- was actually due and
payable to the complainant at the relevant time. In absence of such
evidence, and considering that the accused had no authority in the
release of payment, the allegation of demand of illegal gratification
for issuance of cheque becomes highly doubtful. In these
circumstances, the implication of the present accused appears to
be unjustified and lends support to the defence plea of false
implication.
40. The evidence of PW-4, who was the competent Labour Officer,
clearly establishes that the authority to process and release
payment under the scheme vested with the Labour Officer and not
with the Labour Inspector. The accused was merely a subordinate
official and had no authority to sanction or release the alleged
payment. In absence of any official role in processing the
complainant’s claim, the possibility of demand of illegal gratification
by the appellant becomes highly doubtful.
35
41. The evidence of the trap officer Promod Khes (PW-8) also does not
materially improve the prosecution case in this regard. Although the
trap officer has described the procedural aspects of the trap
proceedings and the alleged recovery of tainted currency notes
from the possession of the accused, his cross-examination reveals
that the investigating agency did not verify whether any amount was
actually pending for payment to the complainant. He has further
admitted that the complainant did not produce any official
documents showing that the said amount was due from the
department. Moreover, the alleged recorded conversation between
the complainant and the accused was not subjected to forensic
examination to verify the voices contained therein. In the absence of
such scientific verification, the alleged recording cannot be relied
upon with certainty to establish the demand of illegal gratification.
The trap officer has also admitted that the independent witnesses
were standing at a distance and therefore could not hear the
conversation between the complainant and the accused. These
admissions significantly weaken the prosecution case and make it
evident that the alleged demand of bribe rests solely upon the
testimony of the complainant.
42. It is well settled that the presumption under Section 20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act arises only when the prosecution first
proves the foundational facts of demand and voluntary acceptance
of illegal gratification. In the present case, since the prosecution has
failed to prove the demand of bribe through reliable evidence, the
statutory presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked against
36
the appellant.
43. The law on this aspect has been authoritatively laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Shanthamma (supra) wherein it has
been held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification are essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that mere recovery of
tainted currency notes is not sufficient to sustain conviction. The
same principle has been reiterated in Rajesh Gupta (supra),
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that demand of illegal
gratification is the sine qua non for constituting the offence and
unless the prosecution proves such demand beyond reasonable
doubt, the conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of
recovery of currency notes. Similar views have also been expressed
by the Bombay High Court in Satish Kumar Kajal v. State through
CBI and Ravindra v. CBI and Mohammad Salim v. CBI, (supra)
wherein it has been observed that when independent witnesses do
not support the prosecution case regarding demand and
acceptance of bribe, the prosecution case becomes doubtful and
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
44. In the present case, though the prosecution has proved that certain
currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder were allegedly
recovered from the possession of the accused, the foundational fact
of demand of illegal gratification has not been established through
reliable and convincing evidence. It is also noteworthy that the
phenolphthalein test conducted during the trap proceedings does
not by itself establish the guilt of the accused unless the prosecution
37
first proves the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal
gratification. The evidence regarding the hand wash and pocket
wash of the accused cannot by itself prove the conscious
acceptance of the tainted currency notes in absence of reliable
proof of demand. The testimony of the complainant remains
uncorroborated and the independent witnesses have not supported
the prosecution on the crucial aspect of demand. The investigation
also suffers from certain deficiencies, particularly the failure to verify
the alleged pending payment and the failure to obtain forensic
verification of the recorded conversation. In criminal jurisprudence
the burden lies entirely upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, and when serious doubts arise
regarding the essential ingredients of the offence, the accused is
entitled to the benefit of such doubt.
45. In view of the foregoing analysis and the detailed appreciation of
evidence discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational
requirement of the offence, namely the demand of illegal
gratification by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. The entire
prosecution case regarding demand rests solely upon the testimony
of the complainant Ramesh Kumar Yadav (PW-2), which does not
find corroboration from the independent witnesses associated with
the trap proceedings. Both Dr. Vinay Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) and
Chetan Sahu (PW-6) have not supported the prosecution case on
the crucial aspect of demand of bribe and have clearly stated that
they did not hear the accused making any such demand.
38
Furthermore, the investigation conducted by the Anti-Corruption
Bureau also suffers from material deficiencies inasmuch as the
investigating officer did not verify whether any amount was actually
pending for payment to the complainant and the alleged recorded
conversation was not subjected to forensic examination to confirm
the voices contained therein.
46. It is well settled that mere recovery of tainted currency notes from
the possession of the accused, in the absence of proof of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification, is not sufficient to sustain
conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as has been
consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Shanthamma
v. State of Telangana and Rajesh Gupta v. State through CBI. In
the present case, since the prosecution has failed to establish the
demand of illegal gratification through reliable and independent
evidence, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go in favour of the
accused.
47. Accordingly, this Court finds that the conviction recorded by the
learned trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
48. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 passed
by the learned trial Court against the appellant/accused Suresh
Kurre are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges
levelled against him.
39
49. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, his bail bonds are
not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further
period of six months in view of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. {481 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)}.
50. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the
concerned trial Court for necessary information and follow up
action.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rahul Dewangan
40
Headnote
Where the allegation of demand rests solely on the uncorroborated
testimony of the complainant and the independent witnesses fail to
support the prosecution case on the material aspect of demand and
acceptance, the foundational facts necessary for raising the statutory
presumption remain unproved. In such circumstances, particularly where
surrounding facts indicate prior animosity or departmental disputes giving
rise to a possible motive, the possibility of false implication cannot be
ruled out, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.