State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C B Nagaraj, 2025
The Recovery of tainted money alone does not trigger presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 without proof of demand.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
7 June 2025
Judges
Justice Pankaj Mithal ⦁ Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The respondent, a public servant, was accused of demanding a ₹1,500 bribe from a school teacher to forward a caste certificate.
-
A trap was laid by the Lokayuktha Police, and tainted currency was recovered from the accused.
-
The respondent defended that the money was repayment of a personal loan, not a bribe.
-
The Trial Court convicted the respondent based on the recovery.
-
The High Court acquitted the accused, citing doubt over the element of demand and the credibility of the complainant.
Issues
-
Whether mere recovery of tainted money is enough to invoke the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
-
Whether a conviction can be sustained without establishing the entire chain: demand, acceptance, and recovery?
Held
-
The Demand of bribe is a mandatory component of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
-
The presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked unless demand is clearly established.
-
Since demand was not conclusively proven, the Court held the chain of events incomplete, and hence, acquittal was proper.
-
The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s judgment was affirmed.
Analysis
-
The judgment reiterates the settled principle of law from earlier cases like B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) that demand is essential to sustain conviction under PC Act.
-
The burden of rebuttal under Section 20 does not arise unless demand is first proved beyond doubt by the prosecution.
-
The Court's careful scrutiny of evidentiary gaps, especially regarding the complainant’s credibility, shows its commitment to upholding due process in criminal prosecution.
-
The Court also restated the doctrine of chain completeness: demand → acceptance → recovery must all be proved.
-
It serves as a guiding precedent that mere possession of marked currency is not enough for conviction.