Two government officials accused of soliciting and accepting bribes have been acquitted by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the prosecution failed to convincingly establish the core elements of demand and acceptance. The case was adjudicated by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, who emphasized that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot be invoked unless the prosecution first proves the foundational facts of illegal demand and receipt.

The case stemmed from allegations that Madan Lal, an Enforcement Inspector, and Narendra Kumar, an Office Assistant, both employed with the Supply Department, demanded illicit gratification in exchange for expediting the issuance of a Rajasthan Trade Authority License (RTAL).

The prosecution's claim was that the accused had requested bribes during an inspection and later accepted the money at the District Supply Office in Sri Ganganagar. Acting on the complaint of the license applicant, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) set up a trap, resulting in the recovery of cash from the accused, along with phenolphthalein test results indicating their contact with the bribe money.

However, independent witnesses in the case offered conflicting testimony. Witnesses who were part of the trap operation stated that some currency notes were found scattered on the floor, a critical contradiction to the prosecution’s assertion that the money was directly received and pocketed by the accused. The court found this discrepancy significant enough to undermine the prosecution’s narrative. “None of the officers spoke of any of the accused having taken out the notes and thrown them on the floor,” observed the court, highlighting the inconsistencies.

The Court further reasoned that reliance solely on the complainant's version, especially when independent witnesses contradicted key details, was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “PW 8 who led the trap team merely spoke of a recovery of the bribe amounts from the possession of the accused and the hands and trousers of the accused having positively reacted to the test solution,” the court noted.

This testimony, however, conflicted with that of independent witnesses, who stated that “some notes were found thrown on the floor.” The court emphasized that these contradictions raised reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution’s claims.

Furthermore, the defense contended that the money was forcibly thrust upon the accused during the scuffle, a claim supported by an office employee who testified to witnessing the altercation. “PW 6 spoke of the scuffle that ensued when the complainant tried to thrust the money into the pocket of the accused,” the judgment recorded. Additionally, another independent witness, PW 1, confirmed that “two currency notes of Rs. 100/- were lying scattered on the ground,” further reinforcing doubts about whether the accused voluntarily accepted the bribe.

The Court reiterated that the burden of proving the demand and acceptance of a bribe lies squarely on the prosecution. It stressed that merely recovering money from an accused individual or conducting a positive phenolphthalein test does not automatically establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. “On an examination of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team of the ACB,” the bench stated unequivocally.

With the evidence failing to meet the legal threshold, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The appeal was thus allowed, leading to the acquittal of the accused, and their bail bonds were subsequently canceled. In conclusion the bench stated “Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed, acquitting the accused for reason of the prosecution having not established and proved the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt,”.

Case Title: MADAN LAL VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Advocates For Petitioner : Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Mr. Vikram Patralekh and ORS.

Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Hemendra Jaiiya, Mr. Sandeep Malik, Mr. Sanjay Baranwal, Mr. Milind Kumar.