It is most extremely significant to note that while ruling on a very crucial issue pertaining to recovery of currency notes, the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Lavan Singh Churendra vs State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station A.C.B. Raipur in CRA No. 52 of 2018 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:CGHC:29642 that was pronounced as recently as on July 1, 2025 has minced absolutely just no words whatsoever to state in no uncertain terms that, “Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of currency notes itself does not constitute the offence under the Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.” To put it differently, it has been made absolutely clear by the Chhattisgarh High Court that in the absence of conclusive proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification, mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Very rightly so!
We thus see that the Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a public servant, Lavan Singh Churendra, who was earlier convicted by a Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Raipur for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. What also merits mentioning is that the Bilaspur High Court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence that was awarded by the Trial Court on December 20, 2017. It merits mentioning that the Chhattisgarh High Court in this noteworthy judgment reaffirmed and reiterated what the Apex Court held in B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P. 2014 AIR SCW 2080 (para 8), Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330 (para 68) and State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj, (Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2025) decided on 19.05.2025 (para 25).
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha of Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Special Case No.43/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in following manner :-
CONVICTION
Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
SENTENCE
RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months.
CONVICTION
Under Section 13 (1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
SENTENCE
RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months.
(Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently).”
As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 2 stating that, “Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by the public servant by abusing his office, the Special Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the prosecution case envisages in para 3 disclosing that, “Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Baijnath Netam (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) was working as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-II at Government Upper Primary School, Madanpur and was also the In-charge of the Pre-Matric Tribal Hostel. The hostel had 44 students residing in it, and their monthly stipend of Rs.28,600/- was sanctioned by the Mandal Coordinator, Gariaband. The accused/appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for sanctioning the stipend for January, 2013 and threatened that if the amount was not paid, he would not sanction the stipend for February, 2013. The complainant paid Rs.2,000/- immediately and promised to pay the remaining Rs.8,000/- later, to which the accused agreed. However, the complainant did not want to pay the bribe and wanted to catch the accused red-handed. Therefore, he filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur, on 22.01.2013. To verify the complaint, the complainant was instructed to record his conversation with the accused regarding the bribe demand. The complainant informed Deputy Superintendent of Police B.S. Paikra about the recorded conversation via phone. Due to the complainant’s village being far from Raipur, he could not come to Raipur and instead asked DSP Paikra to meet him at Loya Poultry Farm, Bhilai Road, Gariaband, on 01.02.2013. Two gazetted officers, Shri B.R. Sahu, SubDivisional Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Arang, and Shri Rajendra Prasad Dubey, Assistant Engineer, Project Director, Chhattisgarh Irrigation Development Project, were appointed as panchnama witnesses after sending a letter to the Collector, Raipur. Based on the complaint submitted by the complainant, a case was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 01.02.2013, a trap team was formed, consisting of DSP B.S. Paikra, Inspector B.S. Rathore, Constable Pawan Pathak, Constable Shivsharan Sahu, Havaldar Chaman Lal Sahu, and drivers Naveen Sahu and Satyanarayan Sahu. They proceeded towards office of the accused in a government vehicle.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 observing that, “The complainant met the team at Loya Poultry Farm, Bhilai Road, Gariaband. The team members, complainant, and panchnama witnesses were introduced to each other. The complainant presented a tape recorder and a written complaint, which was given to the panchnama witnesses to read. They questioned the complainant and made a note on the complaint letter, signing it thereafter. The recording of the conversation regarding the bribe was dubbed, and a CD was prepared. A panchnama was drawn in the presence of the panchnama witnesses, and a zero FIR was registered against the accused. The complainant presented Rs.8,000/- (16 notes of Rs.500/- each) to be given as a bribe, and the numbers of the notes were recorded in the initial panchnama. The constable applied a thin layer of phenolphthalein powder to the bribe notes. A demonstration solution was conducted to illustrate the chemical reaction between sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein, which was explained to all present. The pinkcolored solution resulting from this reaction was then sealed and seized as part of the evidence. Meanwhile, the Panch witness thoroughly searched the complainant, preparing a searched Panchnama of the search to ensure the complainant had no other items on him. The powdered bribe note was carefully placed in the back right pocket of the complainant’s pants by the Panch witness. The complainant was given specific instructions to hand over the bribe amount only when the accused demanded it, to avoid shaking hands with the accused before and after the giving the bribe amount, not to touch the bribe note beforehand, and to observe where the accused kept the bribe amount after receiving it. These steps were meticulously followed to ensure the integrity of the sting operation and to gather conclusive evidence. The complainant was also informed that after giving the bribe, he should signal by passing his hand over his head. When the fingers of the Head Constable, who had applied the powder to the notes, were dipped into a colorless aqueous solution of sodium carbonate, the solution turned pink. This was demonstrated to the complainant and the panch witnesses to illustrate that when the accused received the bribe notes from the complainant, phenolphthalein powder particles would stick to his hands, and when his hands were dipped into the solution, the color of the solution would change. A micro tape recorder was provided to the complainant to record the conversation during the bribe transaction, and a panchnama was prepared. The demonstration solution, powder, and constable were left at the office. The preliminary panchnama of the above-mentioned proceedings was prepared at Loya Poultry Farm, Bhilai Road, Gariaband. According to the trap team’s plan, the complainant and shadow witness, Naveen Sahu, were sent ahead on a motorcycle, while the other members of the trap team followed in a government vehicle. They reached Gandhi Maidan, Gariaband, in front of the accused’s office and dispersed around the office, keeping a watchful eye on the complainant while concealing their presence.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 27 that, “While convicting the appellant, the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid evidence and deficiency in the prosecution witnesses, thereby committed illegality. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence against the appellant.”
Most significantly, the Bench points out in para 28 that, “Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant for offence of bribery. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.”
Far most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 29 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “In order to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, it has to be borne in mind that:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This constitutes offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(1) and (ii).
(iii) In both cases, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence.”
It would be also instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 30 that, “Admittedly, the complainant in the present case was a Shiksha Karmi Grade II holding the additional charge of Hostel Superintendent. It has been admitted by the complainant/PW7 that the complaint was made on 22.01.2013 (Exhibit P/26) and before the said date, the complainant was already terminated from service. The appellant was holding the post of Mandal Sanyojak at Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag and posted in the office of Block Education Officer, Gariyaband. The allegation against the appellant is that he demanded bribe for releasing the stipend for the students of the hostel where the complainant was posted as Hostel Superintendent. Whereas, fact of the matter is that the appellant was not the sanctioning authority and it could have been done only by the Block Education Officer. The complainant himself had made application for sanctioning/withdrawal of the stipend/scholarship for operating the mess to the Block Education Officer on 07.01.2013 and the said application was recommended for sanction on 08.01.2013 and thereafter the amount was also disbursed on 11.01.2013 and the said fact has been admitted by J.N.Pathak, (PW-8) who is the retired Block Education Officer and posted at the relevant point of time.”
Most forthrightly, it cannot be lost sight of that the Bench then points out in para 31 that, “The complainant (PW-7) himself has admitted in his cross examination that the appellant had conducted an enquiry against him on the order of the Additional Collector in which the complainant was found guilty and an order of recovery of Rs. 50,700/- was ordered. The complainant (PW-7) has further admitted in the cross examination that before making the complaint, he had already received the stipend/scholarship amount and as such, there could have been no occasion for the appellant to demand bribe and especially when he was not the competent authority either to recommend or to sanction such amount. From the conduct of the complainant (PW-7) itself it is apparent that he was having a grudge against the appellant who had conducted the enquiry against him and found him guilty. The complainant was found guilty of drawing excess scholarship amount which he was ordered to be refunded. Even the complainant has lodged the complaint showing himself to be the Hostel Superintendent whereas in fact, he was fully aware of the fact that he was terminated from service by that time. The conduct of the complainant (PW-7) himself is suspicious and casts grave doubt against his intentions. The complaint (PW-7) himself has admitted in the cross examination that before filing of the complaint, he was terminated from service. The fact of order of recovery has also been admitted by the Additional Collector (DW-1).”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 32 that, “For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed.”
Resultantly, the Bench then further directs in para 33 holding that, “The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act are hereby set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges.”
In addition, the Bench directs in para 34 stating that, “The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, his bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. {481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)}.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 35 that, “Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action.”
Sanjeev Sirohi