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

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

In such situation, Supreme Court held that mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from circumstances under which such money and article is found is not sufficient to convict accused when substantive evidence in case is not reliable. To prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused officer voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. 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 demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well-settled that 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. In view of material contradiction in depositions of key witnesses, the accused was held entitled to benefit of doubt.