Written by Rahul V PisharodyHyderabad | September 20, 2025 01:53 PM IST 3 min readThe court then criticised the reliance on a “stock witness” (PW.2) and pointed out that multiple prosecution witnesses (four of them) had turned hostile, a fact the trial court had seemingly overlooked. (File Photo)Overturning a 2007 judgment that convicted him, the Telangana High Court Thursday acquitted a government official of all charges in a corruption case involving an alleged bribe of Rs 4,000. The verdict, delivered by Justice J Sreeniva Rao, pointed out the prosecution’s “miserable failure to prove the sine qua non (essential component) of demand”, a foundational requirement for establishing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.Setting aside the conviction by the Principal Special Judge for cases under the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Justice Rao stated that the “essential ingredients of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification are wholly absent” in the case.Official nabbed after ACB lays trapThe case stemmed from an incident in 2000 in which R Mahender, the appellant, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 4,000 from a de facto complainant for processing a final bill of Rs 25,500 related to a government school building construction. The complainant was the chairperson of the School Education Committee of Thattupally village in Warangal, and was entrusted with the task of construction of the building under the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP).A trap was laid by the ACB in January 2000, and tainted currency notes were allegedly recovered from the accused. The appellant’s counsel highlighted that the de facto complainant had turned hostile and explicitly stated in his cross-examination that the accused had not demanded a bribe.Instead, the complainant claimed the money was for “supervisory charges” to be paid to the site engineer, a fact corroborated by other witnesses. The counsel argued that the simple recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, without concrete proof of a prior demand and conscious acceptance, is not sufficient to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.On the contrary, the Special Public Prosecutor stated that the amount which was given by the de facto complainant to the appellant towards supervisory charges is “an afterthought” and the de facto complainant had turned hostile.The court then criticised the reliance on a “stock witness” (PW.2) and pointed out that multiple prosecution witnesses (four of them) had turned hostile, a fact the trial court had seemingly overlooked.Story continues below this ad‘Payment had legitimate basis’The judge remarked, “The evidence on record further demonstrates that the money allegedly received by the appellant was in fact paid towards supervisory charges to the site engineer… The records reveal that on the date of lodging the complaint and laying the trap, the construction work was admittedly incomplete, and the site engineer subsequently issued a receipt and processed the final bill, conclusively showing that the payment had a legitimate basis.”The judgment referenced several Supreme Court precedents, reinforcing that “mere recovery of money, without proof of demand, cannot sustain conviction, as the statutory presumption under Section 20 arises only when demand and conscious acceptance are proved beyond reasonable doubt.”Justice Rao stated that holding the accused guilty would “dilute the principle of presumption of innocence and expose individuals to criminal liability based on incomplete or unreliable evidence.”Subsequently, the high court concluded that the prosecution had “failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant for the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.” The appeal was allowed, and the 2007 judgment was set aside, with all charges against Mahender cancelled.Rahul V Pisharody is Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting for IE on various news developments from Telangana since 2019. He is currently reporting on legal matters from the Telangana High Court. Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of city reporters, district correspondents, other centres and internet desk for over three years. A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. ... Read MoreStay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:Telangana High Court