# Sadho Ram Singh v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 887
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-31
- **Bench:** Mrs. Ranjana Pandya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sadho-ram-singh-v-state-of-u-p-43990
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification - Proof of demand - Recovery of tainted money - Presumption under
Section 20 - Failure to prove demand - Contradictions in prosecution evidence - Non-examination of
material witness - Recovery memo doubtful - Acquittal.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant moved an application on 19.3.2002 to the S.P. Vigilance
Department, Varanasi Sector stating that the accused Sadho Ram Singh demanded money to declare the
daughter of the complainant as pass in the matriculation examination. He informed the officers concerned
that he wanted to get the accused trapped.Formalities were completed and the trap was organized.(Para 2)

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand of
bribe and even the acceptance of bribe, hence the whole prosecution case crumbles down like heap of cards.
Demand of bribe is a condition precedent to convict the accused under the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned Advocate has insistently urged that the prosecution had
failed to prove any demand of alleged illegal gratification involved, and thus, the vitally essential ingredient of
the offences both under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act being conspicuously absent,
the appellant ought to have been acquitted of the charge on both counts. He has further submitted that even
assuming without admitting that the recovery of the tainted notes from the appellant had been established,
sans the proof of demand which is a sine qua non for an offence both under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, the
appellant's conviction as recorded by the trial court is on the face of the record unsustainable in law and on
facts(Para 14)

Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses taken as a whole,
demonstrably proved the demand, receipt and recovery of the illegal gratification sought for and as such no
interference with the appellant's conviction is warranted(Para 15)

Held:(Paras 30,36,37,38)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,881 of 49,598. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39881 for what follows._

5 All. Sadho Ram Singh Vs State Of U.P.

887
reasonable doubt. In cross-examination, Circle Officer, PW-4, Kamlesh Dixit has stated that the
victim had told him in her statement that she came on foot in the evening to her house. She also
stated that the accused-persons dropped her by truck near the village road and threatened to her.

37. The whole prosecution story is unreliable, belies logic and the learned trial court misled
itself in relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which are contradictory to each other,
which does not inspire confidence. The complete testimony of the victim being unworthy of
credence, unreliable and bundle of lies could not have form the basis for the conviction of the
accused on the basis of illegal and inadmissible evidence.

38. Thus, what has been stated and discussed above, I conclude that the prosecution case is
a bundle of false allegations and improbable facts, due to which the learned trial court misled itself
and has incorrectly convicted the accused, which conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

39. Hence, the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2014
passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2002 (State of U.P. vs Mahesh Chandra
Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 189 of 2002, under Sections 343, 368, 376(2)(g)
and 506 IPC, Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar, is, hereby, set-aside as against the
present appellants.

40. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.

41. The appellants-Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Mahaveer Chamar and Jagat Lal Sachan are in
jail. They shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. However, the appellants are
directed to comply with the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. forthwith.

42. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Trial court concerned.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 2827 Of 2015

Sadho Ram Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dileep Kumar, Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Sheetla Prasad, Surendra Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification - Proof of demand - Recovery of tainted money - Presumption under
Section 20 - Failure to prove demand - Contradictions in prosecution evidence - Non-examination of
material witness - Recovery memo doubtful - Acquittal.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant moved an application on 19.3.2002 to the S.P. Vigilance
Department, Varanasi Sector stating that the accused Sadho Ram Singh demanded money to declare the
daughter of the complainant as pass in the matriculation examination. He informed the officers concerned
that he wanted to get the accused trapped.Formalities were completed and the trap was organized.(Para 2)

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand of
bribe and even the acceptance of bribe, hence the whole prosecution case crumbles down like heap of cards.
Demand of bribe is a condition precedent to convict the accused under the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned Advocate has insistently urged that the prosecution had
failed to prove any demand of alleged illegal gratification involved, and thus, the vitally essential ingredient of
the offences both under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act being conspicuously absent,
the appellant ought to have been acquitted of the charge on both counts. He has further submitted that even
assuming without admitting that the recovery of the tainted notes from the appellant had been established,
sans the proof of demand which is a sine qua non for an offence both under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, the
appellant's conviction as recorded by the trial court is on the face of the record unsustainable in law and on
facts(Para 14)

Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses taken as a whole,
demonstrably proved the demand, receipt and recovery of the illegal gratification sought for and as such no
interference with the appellant's conviction is warranted(Para 15)

Held:(Paras 30,36,37,38)

1. The proof of recovery of treated notes from the possession of the accused, P.W. 1 Raghvendra Singh
Deputy S.P., Vigilance, has stated that treated notes were recovered and when the hands of the relevant
persons was got washed, the solution turned pink, which was sealed and sent for chemical examination. He
has admitted that the complainant did not mention the place and time where the illegal gratification was to be
paid. The backbone of this case is the recovery memo. The original recovery memo is Exhibit Ka-6 and its
photocopy was got prepared by the prosecution and although not got proved, but it was part of the case
diary. The original recovery memo was bearing Paper No. 59Ka, whereas the photocopy was bearing Paper
No. 12Ka, but perusal of the original and photocopy of recovery memo revealed that the photocopy was not
at all the photocopy of the original memo. The I.O. was confronted with this aspect of the matter and has
admitted that while he was submitting the charge-sheet, he could not peruse and see the original recovery
memo. He annexed the photocopy of the original memo with the case diary, which was definitely in the
photocopy of the original case.

2. D.W. 1 is Ram Dular Singh, who has admitted that Mohan Singh filed a writ before the Hon'ble High Court
against the appellant Sadho Singh, which was dismissed. He has also stated that on 18.3.2002 from 7:30 to
10:30 Hindi Ist Paper was conducted. On 19.3.2002 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Intermediate examinations
were to be held. On 20.3.2002 from 7:30 to 10:30 Hindi IInd Paper was to be conducted and from 2:00 p.m.
5 All. Sadho Ram Singh Vs State Of U.P.

889
to 5:00 p.m. on 21.3.2002 Sanskrit Paper was to be conducted. This witness has specifically stated that on
21.3.2002 he was present in the Principal's office, when the copies were being sealed and the preparations for
the next test examinations were in progress, when suddenly the peon came and said that some persons
immediately want to see the Principal, at which the Principal went out of the room and from the gate he was
taken away by the police. This statement of D.W. 1 Ram Dular finds support from the statement of Ravindra
Nath Pandey, P.W. 3, who has stated that the accused-appellant Sadho Singh was arrested from the gate of
the office. Thus, in these circumstances when enmity of the Vice Principal Mohan Singh with the present
appellant Sadho Singh was proved on record and neither the demand of illegal gratification nor recovery
thereto was proved, the learned lower court had passed the judgement on surmises and conjectures in
convicting the accused-appellant, when both the fact has not been proved against him beyond reasonable
doubt.

3. Thus, on the basis what has been stated and discussed above, I find that the learned lower court has
misled itself in reaching to the conclusion that the accused is guilty for the offence charged. Thus, the
accused is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Hence, the impugned conviction and
sentence dated 23.5.2015 passed by Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act, Varanasi in Special Case No.
19 of 2013 (State Vs. Sadho Ram Singh) arising out of Crime No. 87 of 2002, under Section 7/13 (1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Adalhat, District-Mirzapur is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Case Law discussed:

A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 (Para 16)
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 (Para 23)
Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration), 1979 Cri LJ 717 (Para 29)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 23.5.2015 passed by Special
Judge Prevention of Corruption Act, Varanasi in Special Case No. 19 of 2013 (State Vs. Sadho
Ram Singh) arising out of Crime No. 87 of 2002, under Section 7/13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Adalhat, DistrictMirzapur, whereby the accused
appellant was found guilty under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 20,000/- fine
under Section 7 and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 20,000/- fine under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with default
stipulation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant moved an application on 19.3.2002 to the
S.P. Vigilance Department, Varanasi Sector stating that the accused Sadho Ram Singh demanded
money to declare the daughter of the complainant as pass in the matriculation examination. He
informed the officers concerned that he wanted to get the accused trapped.Formalities were
completed and the trap was organized.

3. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the complainant namely Amarjeet Kaur was
the student of Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College, Rupaudha and was appearing for the
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matriculation examination. Her Roll No. was 2006348 and her center for examination was Chandra
Shekhar Azad Inter College, Rupaudha, Mirzapur. The accused-appellant Sadho Ram Singh was
the Principal of that college, who undertook to get the girls through the matriculation examination,
if they paid Rs. 10,000/- to 20,000/- per scholar. The accused-appellant Sadho Ram Singh has also
demanded Rs. 10,000/- from the daughter of the complainant. The complainant contacted the
accused appellant and asked him at which the appellant told him that if he wanted his daughter to
pass in the matriculation examination, he will have to pay Rs. 10,000/-, otherwise she would fail
that year also as she failed in the previous year. The complainant was frightened and said that he
was very poor and could not pay that amount. Further, the accusedappellant also said that he would
either change the copy or facilitate copying to enable the girl to clear her matriculation
examination.

4. The complainant Harshpati became perturbed and requested the appellant, but the
appellant was not ready and was not willing to do the job without any bribe and insisted that he
would ensure that the girl fails in her examination. Constrainedly, the complainant said that he
would pay Rs. 5,000/-, but he wanted to get the appellant trapped redhanded. At this the the official
Vehicle bearing No. UP 32 S 4641 was obtained alongwith the driver and in the evening 6:00 p.m.
was decided to get the appellant caught redhanded. The necessary articles namely phenolphthalein
powder, sodium carbonate, needle-thread, lacquer (लाह), stamp, candle and empty bottle were
obtained from the office. The police alongwith the complainant at 5:00 p.m. proceeded by Jeep No.
UP 32 S 4641 with the trapped team members and reached at bypass crossing at 17:45 hours via
Narayanpur railway over-bridge. Inspector Harihar Ram was directed to call the independent
witness. He reached after 15 minutes with Ravindra Pandey and Pawan Kumar Singh. The
independent witness, the police party and the complainant were introduced to each other. The
purpose was narrated to the independent witness, who agreed to be witnesses to the incident.

5. The complainant gave 10 currency notes bearing No. 0BA001491, 5CP277263, 5fl278927, 6AG-163664, 4bA 779342, 2Cd157699, OEU 323040, UPW 129411,5BM803375,
8AE859503, valuing Rs. 5,000/-, and said that those currency notes were to be given as bribe. The
number of currency notes were noted by Raghvendra Singh, D.S.P., Vigilance. They were treated
with phenolphthalein powder and the currency notes were handed over to Harshpati Singh with the
direction that those particular notes were to be handed over to the accused-appellant. Shri A.K. Rai,
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Varanasi Sector conducted the necessary
interrogation, recommended for permission of the trap proceedings to the Government and
obtained the prior permission for trap proceedings

6. On 20.3.2002 permission was granted and approved to conduct the trap proceedings,
thereby S.M. Naseem directed the officers to proceed with the mission. Shri A.K. Rai,
Superintendent of Police, passed the orders for trap on 21.3.2002. Inspector Ravi Shankar Mishra,
Harihar Rai, Matwar Yadav and Constables Ram Ji Singh and Siddhnath were directed to assist the
mission, who were introduced to the complainant in the chamber of Shri A.K. Rai. All the
concerned persons were issued necessary directions. The informant Harshpati Singh took the
5 All. Sadho Ram Singh Vs State Of U.P.

891
currency notes, amounted them, wrapped in the white paper and kept in the left pocket of his Kurta.
Inspector Ravi Shankar Mishra prepared sodium carbonate solution, got the palms and fingers of
Harshpati Singh and Raghvendra Singh, D.S.P., washed in the solution separately. Both the
solution turned pink, which were kept in separate bottles and sealed it.

7. Again the matter was discussed with the complainant, witnesses and other associates and
it was decided that they would proceed to the college. When all the people reached near the college,
they all searched each other. Harshpati Singh was having the treated notes. No one else having any
illegal article. The complainant got down from the jeep and entered into the college premises. He
was followed by Deputy S.P. Raghvendra Singh and witness Ravindra Pandey. The appellant
Sadho Ram Singh was sitting in his room just opposite to the gate. There was light in his chamber.
The witness and the Deputy S.P. followed the complainant and reached the chamber of the
Principal. The principal asked the complainant as to who the other people were, at this complainant
said that their wards were also appearing for the exams and they wanted to meet the Principal. The
principal asked the complainant where he had brought Rs. 5,000/-, at this Harshpati Singh took out
the treated notes wrapped in white paper from his left pocket and handed over it to the accusedappellant, who counted the money and held it in his right hand. Suddenly, D.S.P. Raghvendra
Singh rushed towards the appellant and caught his right hand. All the witnesses also came to the
spot. Rupees five thousand bearing the same numbers were recovered from the hand of the
accused-appellant Sadho Singh. The recovered currency notes were kept in a open envelope. Ravi
Shankar Mishra prepared sodium carbonate and both the hands palms and fingers of the accusedappellant were got washed in the solution, which turned pink, which was collected in an empty
bottle and sealed it. Sodium Carbonate was got prepared and the hands and palms of the
complainant and the D.S.P. were got washed the solution which turned pink and also sealed in
separate bottle. The paper in which the currency notes were wrapped was also taken from the
accused and sealed. The accused revealed his name to be Sadho Ram Singh @ Sadho Singh. He
was taken into custody. He was searched at which two keys were found from his pocket. One wrist
watch, a bundle of keys were also found from his possession. The accused-appellant stated that key
Nos. 34 and 44 relates to the cupboard, where the copies of question paper of the board
examination were kept. Since, the Principal was apprehended, many people started collecting there.

8. The accused-appellant and others were brought to the police station. The appellant told
that on 22.3.2002 in the afternoon the examination was scheduled to be held, hence all the
Executive Officers of the district were apprised of the occurrence and requested to get the
examination held in order. The accused-appellant was made to converse with the school teacher
Ram Bodh Singh on his request. The recovery memo was prepared and got signed by all the
witnesses.

9. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is Raghvendra Singh,
D.S.P., Vigilance Department. He proved the application given by the complainant and the order
passed by S.P., Vigilance as Exhibit Ka-1. He further proved the permission to launch proceeding
as Exhibit Ka-2. This witness also proved the permission granted by the Principal Secretary,
Vigilance as Exhibit Ka-3 and the note written by the Principal Secretary, Vigilance as Exhibit Ka-
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. This witness further proved the endorsement made by the then S.P. A.K. Rai as Exhibit Ka-5.
This witness prepared the memo, which was proved by him as Exhibit Ka-6 and the recovery
memo as Exhibit Ka-7. He proved the sodium carbonate as material Exhibit 1 to 6. He further
proved the currency notes as material Exhibit 7 to 16. P.W. 2 is Harshpati, the complainant, who
moved the complaint stating that he was interested to get the accused-appellant trapped. P.W. 3 is
Ravi Nath Pandey, who is said to be an independent witness, who witnessed the accused accepting
bribe and the recovery of the bribe money from the possession of the accused. P.W. 4 is Pawan
Kumar Singh, who is also the independent witness to the recovery, who identified the signatures on
Exhibit Ka-6 and Ka-7. P.W. 5 is Inspector Harihar Ram, who accompanied the team and arrested
the accused. He also proved the recovery of the treated notes from the possession of the appellant.
He proved his signatures on the memo. P.W. 6 is Matwar Yadav, he is also the witness to the
recovery and the trapped proceedings. P.W. 7 is Keshav Prasad Gupta, the Investigating Officer to
whom the investigation was entrusted. The witness submitted charge-sheet against the accused,
which was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-8. He further prepared and proved the charge-sheet
as Exhibit Ka-9. This witness further proved the chik report as Exhibit Ka-10 and the Fard as
Exhibit Ka-11.

10. After examining the aforesaid witnesses, the statement of the accused was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the occurrence and stated that he had been falsely
implicated with the connivance of Mohan Singh. The accused-appellant produced Ram Dular Singh
as D.W. 1, who brought the record summoned by the court.

11. After hearing counsel for the parties, learned lower court found the accused-appellant
guilty and sentenced him as has been specified in Para 1 of the judgement.

12. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-appellant has come in appeal.

13. I have heard Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the trial court record.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove demand of bribe and even the acceptance of bribe, hence the whole prosecution case
crumbles down like heap of cards. Demand of bribe is a condition precedent to convict the accused
under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned Advocate
has insistently urged that the prosecution had failed to prove any demand of alleged illegal
gratification involved, and thus, the vitally essential ingredient of the offences both under Sections
7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act being conspicuously absent, the appellant ought to
have been acquitted of the charge on both counts. He has further submitted that even assuming
without admitting that the recovery of the tainted notes from the appellant had been established,
sans the proof of demand which is a sine qua non for an offence both under Sections 7 and 13 of
the Act, the appellant's conviction as recorded by the trial court is on the face of the record
unsustainable in law and on facts.
5 All. Sadho Ram Singh Vs State Of U.P.

893
15. Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
taken as a whole, demonstrably proved the demand, receipt and recovery of the illegal gratification
sought for and as such no interference with the appellant's conviction is warranted. It is expedient
at this juncture to set out the relevant extracts of Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, under which the appellant has been convicted. Section 7 and 13 reads as under:

Sec. 7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect
of an official act.- Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or
agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any
gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official
functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or
disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or
the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company
referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall
be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to
five years and shall also be liable to fine.

(Explanations) -(a) "Expecting to be a public servant". If a person not expecting
to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in
office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the
offence defined in this section.

(b) "Gratification". The word "gratification" is notrestricted to pecuniary
gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.

(c) "Legal remuneration". The words "legalremuneration" are not restricted to
remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he
is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.

(d) "A motive or reward for doing". A person whoreceives a gratification as a
motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done,
comes within this expression.

(e) Where a public servant induces a personerroneously to believe that his
influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to
give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public
servant has committed an offence under this section.

Sec. 13: Criminal misconduct by a public servant

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees toaccept or attempts to obtain
from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal
remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees toaccept or attempts to obtain for
himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration
which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be
likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him,
or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he
is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so
concerned; or

(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulentlymisappropriates or otherwise converts for his
own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other
person so to do; or

(d) if he,-

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himselfor for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,obtains for himself or for any other
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtainsfor any person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the
period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account,
of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means
income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with
the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years
and shall also be liable to fine.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on (2009) 6 SCC 587: A. Subair
Vs. State of Kerala, in which it has been held that :
5 All. Sadho Ram Singh Vs State Of U.P.

895
"while dwelling on the purport, the section 7 and 13 of the Act ruled that the
prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and
that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof
of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be
proved to proof a conviction."

17. Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, taken as a whole, demonstrably proved the demand, receipt and recovery of the illegal
gratification sought for and as such no interference with the appellant's conviction is warranted.

18. Thus, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof
of demand would not enable the court to convict the accused. In the absence of the any proof of
demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public
servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved, the court
said while referring to its verdict. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable
essentially and permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section
20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is
extendable only to an offence under Section 7 of the Act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal
gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it
is true that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act
could not demand. Thus, it emerges that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the
gravamen of the offence and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, 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 the
provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, 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 would not entail his conviction thereunder.

19. A very spirited endeavour has been made by the learned A.G.A. by stating that there is
sufficient evidence on record to prove the demand of illegal gratification and recovery of the
tainted notes from the possession of the appellant by the trap team and also the chemical re-action
of the sodium carbonate qua, the appellant, but I think the factum of demand has to be proved
beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. Reverting to the oral evidence in the case of Raghvendra Singh, Deputy S.P.,
Vigilance, in his examination-in-chief has verbatim supported the prosecution case. This witness
have to undergo the test of cross-examination. He is not the witness of demand of illegal
gratification, but he has stated that the complainant Harshpati moved an application that the
accused demanded illegal gratification from his daughter and even from him. Thus, this witness is
not the witness of demand of illegal gratification. Harshpati Singh, P.W. 2, is alleged to be the
witness, from whom the illegal gratification was demanded by the appellant Sadho Ram Singh @
Sadho Singh.
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21. In the examination-in-chief Harshpati Singh has stated that his daughter is the student
of Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College, Rupaudha, who was appearing for the High School
examination. During the relevant period her centre was Rupaudha, where the Principal was
appellant namely Sadho Singh. Sadho Singh, used to take Rs. 10,000/- from the student to get them
"passed" in the high school examination. Further, this witness has stated that his daughter told him
that the accused told her to bring her father along. The daughter of the complainant Harshpati Singh
is Amarjeet Kaur. The whole prosecution story revolved around her, because she was the student,
who was involved and who had to be got "passed" in the high school examination. She was not
produced by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution, inasmuch as she was
the first person from whom demand was made. The prosecution has failed to assign any reason for
not producing Amarjeet Kaur, due to which adverse inference should have been drawn against the
prosecution for non-production of Amarjeet Kaur and the absence of any reasonable and plausible
explanation for her non-production.

22. P.W. 2 Harshpati Singh, has stated that he went to the college and met Sadho Singh,
who demanded Rs. 10,000/to get his daughter "passed". The occurrence is said to have taken place
and the alleged recovery is said to have affected on 21.3.2002, whereas the complainant moved an
application to get the accused trapped on 19.3.2002. Harshpati Singh, P.W. 2 has admitted that on
18.3.2002 his daughter had already appeared in the Hindi Ist Paper. On 20.3.2002, she had to
appear for her Hindi IInd Paper and on 21.3.2002 for her Sanskrit Paper. Now, if all the three
papers i.e. Hindi Ist, Hindi IInd and Sanskrit papers were conducted and were over on 18.3.2002,
20.3.2002 and 21.3.2002 respectively, I could not think that there could even any purpose in
making demand of payment to the appellant on 21.3.2002 after the paper was over. I am aware that
the application was moved on 19.3.2002, but even then on 18.3.2002, one paper had already
definitely been conducted. Thus, the only half hearted evidence demand of illegal gratification is
the sole statement of Harshpati Singh, P.W. 2, who is also the member of the complete trap team.

23. In (2013) 12 SCC Page 406: Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, in which it has been
held that:

"The reiteration of the golden principle runs through the web of the administration
of justice in criminal cases has been done. It has further been held that suspicion, however grave,
cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of
"may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any
possible surmises or conjectures. Thus, on the material on record when judged on the touch stone
of legal principles adumbrated hereinabove, leave no manner of doubt that the prosecution, in the
instant case, has failed to prove unequivocally, the demand of illegal gratification."

24. As far as the recovery of treated notes is concerned, if the demand is not proved beyond
all reasonable doubt, recovery would be of no consequence. However, mere recovery of tainted
money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the
accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself
cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to
5 All. Sadho Ram Singh Vs State Of U.P.

897
prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to
be bribe.

25. The learned A.G.A. has submitted that the onus of proof was upon the appellant to
explain as to how he came into possession of the amount recovered from him during the trap. The
argument of the learned counsel is obviously based on Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 which reads as under:

"20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal
remuneration.- (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 of Section 11 or
clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has
accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other
person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept
or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or
reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a
consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under clause

(b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration)
or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused
person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or
attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or
reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be without consideration or for a
consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections(1) (2), the court may
decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or
thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn."

26. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was
payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be
drawn is that such gratification was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any
official act. So the word gratification need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the
outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was
payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two
expressions adjacent to each other like gratification or any valuable thing. If acceptance of any
valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing
or forbearing to do any official act. So the word gratification must be treated in the context to mean
any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it.
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an
irrebuttable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross
examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If the accused
fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the
prosecution has proved that the accused received the amount towards gratification.

28. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person
against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden
placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. "It is well established that
where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused he is not required to discharge that burden by
leading evidence of proof his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed
in deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but
the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed
upon him under Section 4 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused
person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary
for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur verdict of
guilt. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of
probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts to prosecution which still has to
discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e.; that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of
the accused beyond a reasonable doubt."

29. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there are vast discrepancies and
contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, hence where witnesses make to inconsistent
statements either at one or two stages, their testimony cannot be said to be credible and mere
recovery of money is not sufficient to convict the accused as has been held in 1979 CrLJ Page
717: Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

30. Coming to the proof of recovery of treated notes from the possession of the accused,
P.W. 1 Raghvendra Singh Deputy S.P., Vigilance, has stated that treated notes were recovered and
when the hands of the relevant persons was got washed, the solution turned pink, which was sealed
and sent for chemical examination. He has admitted that the complainant did not mention the place
and time where the illegal gratification was to be paid. The backbone of this case is the recovery
memo. The original recovery memo is Exhibit Ka-6 and its photocopy was got prepared by the
prosecution and although not got proved, but it was part of the case diary. The original recovery
memo was bearing Paper No. 59Ka, whereas the photocopy was bearing Paper No. 12Ka, but
perusal of the original and photocopy of recovery memo revealed that the photocopy was not at all
the photocopy of the original memo. The I.O. was confronted with this aspect of the matter and has
admitted that while he was submitting the charge-sheet, he could not peruse and see the original
recovery memo. He annexed the photocopy of the original memo with the case diary, which was
definitely in the photocopy of the original case. This witness being P.W. 7 Keshav Prasad Gupta,
has admitted that गिाह ने पेपर नं0 क/2 देखकर कहा फक दसके प श्त पर केिल 6 आदलमयों के हस्ताक्षर हैं। कागज संख्या 13
क/2 के प श्त पर ननरीक्षक हररहर राम के हस्ताक्षर है या नही। इस पर क ल 6 व्यजक्तयों के हस्ताक्षर है।
5 All. Sadho Ram Singh Vs State Of U.P.

899
31.