Recovery of tainted money cannot be sole ground to convict public servants on corruption charges

In this case, the accused officer was working as Sanitary Inspector who as per the complainant demanded money and a cell phone as bribe from the complainant who was working as a supervisor. The hands of the accused were not tested immediately after payment and handing over of money and cell phone. While monitoring the place of occurrence for about one hour and during that period many persons visited the office of the Sanitary Inspector.

In such a situation, Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from circumstances under which such money and article are found is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. To prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused officer voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. The absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. Even the presumption as to demand and acceptance of bribe can be drawn only after the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well-settled that the initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.

In the absence of 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 established. Because of material contradiction in depositions of key witnesses, the accused is entitled to benefit of the doubt.