Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) –Proof of Demand of illegal gratification – Gravamen of offence – Decoy/complainant turning hostile – Effect Accused Officer (AO) 1 (Sub-Inspector of Police) and AO2 (PC 1949), Amaravathi PS, were alleged to have demanded ₹10,000 (reduced to ₹5,000) from PW1 for “compromising” a dispute between PW2 and PW4 without registering any case, and to have accepted ₹5,000 in a trap. PW1 (decoy) and PW2 (his father) did not support prosecution; both were treated hostile. PW4 (alleged borrower) denied any loan/dispute; PW5 (PC) also turned hostile. Held, proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of offences under Ss.7 and 13(1)(d); in its absence, mere acceptance or recovery of tainted money, or positive chemical test, is not enough to sustain conviction. Earlier demand said to have led to Ex.P1 (complaint) was not proved; with the decoy hostile, there was no acceptable evidence of any demand either prior to or at the time of trap. Prosecution thus failed to establish the essential ingredient of “demand”. Conviction cannot rest solely on recovery. (Paras 20–23, 26–27; following P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, 2016(1) ACR 474 : 2015(2) ALD (Crl) 883 (SC))

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) –Proof of Demand of illegal gratification – Gravamen of offence – Decoy/complainant turning hostile – Effect

Accused Officer (AO) 1 (Sub-Inspector of Police) and AO2 (PC 1949), Amaravathi PS, were alleged to have demanded ₹10,000 (reduced to ₹5,000) from PW1 for “compromising” a dispute between PW2 and PW4 without registering any case, and to have accepted ₹5,000 in a trap. PW1 (decoy) and PW2 (his father) did not support prosecution; both were treated hostile. PW4 (alleged borrower) denied any loan/dispute; PW5 (PC) also turned hostile.

Held, proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of offences under Ss.7 and 13(1)(d); in its absence, mere acceptance or recovery of tainted money, or positive chemical test, is not enough to sustain conviction. Earlier demand said to have led to Ex.P1 (complaint) was not proved; with the decoy hostile, there was no acceptable evidence of any demand either prior to or at the time of trap. Prosecution thus failed to establish the essential ingredient of “demand”. Conviction cannot rest solely on recovery.
(Paras 20–23, 26–27; following P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, 2016(1) ACR 474 : 2015(2) ALD (Crl) 883 (SC))

B. Trap – Shadow/mediator witness – Phenolphthalein test – Recovery – When insufficient

PW7, mediator to pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, deposed that phenolphthalein test on AO2’s fingers was positive and the tainted amount was recovered from AO2’s shirt pocket; test on AO1’s fingers was negative. PW7 was not a witness to any earlier demand, but only to post-trap events.

Held, PW7’s evidence only proves handling/recovery of the tainted notes by AO2 and successful chemical test; without independent proof of demand from PW1, such evidence cannot, by itself, establish offences under Ss.7 and 13(1)(d). Shadow/mediator witness testimony plus recovery is inadequate in the absence of proved demand, particularly where decoy and material witnesses have turned hostile.
(Paras 21–22, 25–26)

C. Criminal Trial – Hostile decoy witness – Corroboration – Use of complaint and trap proceedings

PW1, the author of Ex.P1 (complaint), admitted signing it without reading and did not support the prosecution version of demand by AO1 or direction to pay AO2. With PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 turning hostile, there was no substantive evidence of the alleged initial demand. Ex.P1 and trap proceedings (Exs.P8 & P14) being only part of investigative record, cannot substitute substantive oral proof of demand. In such circumstances, it is unsafe to base conviction solely on recovery and mediator’s evidence.
(Paras 21–23, 25–27)

D. Result – Standard of proof – Benefit of doubt

On overall appraisal, prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the earlier integrated demand of illegal gratification and consequential demand/acceptance at the time of trap. Following settled law that failure to prove demand is fatal to a PC Act case, both accused officers are entitled to benefit of doubt.

Held: Prosecution having failed to establish essential ingredients of Ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), convictions set aside; AOs acquitted; bail bonds discharged; fine, if any, to be refunded.
(Paras 26–28)