In Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (Criminal Appeal No. 4573 of 2026, 2026 INSC 1084), decided on October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a public servant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court reiterated that mere possession or recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification, is not sufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification had not been proved. Background of the CaseThe prosecution case was that PW-1 Durgapad Singh Munda was appointed as an orderly in the Government High School at Sirum on February 1, 2010, but was not paid his salary. The appellant, Ajit Kumar, was an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella. It was alleged that when PW-1 approached him for release of the salary, the appellant demanded Rs. 5,000 as a bribe.PW-1 did not wish to pay and, on April 19, 2010, applied to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. The SP deputed PW-2, Police Inspector Shyamlal Champiya, to verify the complaint. PW-2 reported on May 19, 2010 that the allegations were true, and Vigilance PS Case No. 17/2010 was registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. A trap team was constituted, and on May 20, 2010 the trap was laid, culminating in the alleged payment of Rs. 5,000 and the subsequent recovery of the currency notes.After investigation by PW-11, DSP Ramashish Raut, a chargesheet was filed and charges were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) by judgment dated February 27, 2021. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for each of the two offences, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Jharkhand High Court dismissed his appeal on July 21, 2022.Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant stated that he had undergone the sentence and paid the fine, but wished to pursue the matter to get his name cleared. Leave was granted on September 23, 2026.Arguments Before the Supreme CourtThe appellant submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged demand beyond reasonable doubt, and that proof of demand is the sine qua non for an offence under these provisions. He argued that the prosecution relied entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, and that the prosecution itself admitted the transaction took place inside the appellant's residence, in the absence of the trap team and without any shadow or independent witness. He contended that the trial court erred in inferring acceptance from the later recovery of chemically treated notes, even though the solution turned pink when his fingers were dipped in it, since mere recovery would not prove demand and acceptance. He also submitted that the phenolphthalein test was conducted belatedly and that the trial was vitiated by serious infirmities.The State submitted that the trial court's conviction rested on a correct appreciation of the evidence and that the High Court had rightly affirmed it. On a "wholesome reading" of the evidence, it said, demand and acceptance stood proved, and mere discrepancies "here and there" would not dislodge the conviction. The State also submitted that, since the appellant had served his sentence, the appeal had become an academic exercise.What the Evidence RevealedThe Court examined the testimony of PW-1 and the trap team members and, without getting "bogged down" in every inconsistency, noted that they were "galore" in the narration of facts.Where the payment took place. PW-1 deposed that he handed the Rs. 5,000 to the accused at the accused's residence, where the accused kept it under his bed. PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-10 likewise spoke of the two going to the residence on a motorcycle and returning to the office, after which PW-1 disclosed that the bribe had been paid. But PW-4 stated in cross-examination that PW-1 told him the transaction took place in the accused's office, and PW-11, the Investigating Officer, said the transaction occurred in the office between about 11:35 am and 12:00 noon.Where and how the accused was apprehended. PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-6, PW-10 and PW-11 described the accused being apprehended in his office after PW-1 gave the signal, and then taken to his residence. PW-3, however, first said the accused was arrested and taken to his residence, then stated in cross-examination that he was brought to the office from his residence, where he was arrested.The recovery. Several witnesses said the money was recovered from under the bed; PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 spoke of the pillow. PW-3 admitted that the bed, bed-sheet and pillow were not seized. PW-3 placed the residence about a quarter of a kilometre from the office, while PW-10 put it at about one and a half kilometres. PW-4 and PW-5 said their signatures were not on the seizure memo or list, though PW-4 claimed to have been present. PW-5 and PW-10 admitted that no money was recovered from the accused in the office.The phenolphthalein test. Witnesses variously said the hands were "dipped" or "washed" in the solution, and placed this at the residence (PW-3, in cross-examination) or at the office (PW-2 and PW-4). PW-6 and PW-11 did not say where.The independent witnesses. PW-8, the Head Clerk, remained outside the residence, said nothing was shown to him and that he signed documents on the directions of the vigilance officials. PW-9, a Clerk, also said he signed papers at the direction of vigilance officials without knowing their contents, did not see any money, and deposed that notes were recovered from the residence on the direction of the police.The verification. The Court noted that PW-2 said he overheard the demand on April 22, 2010, yet submitted his report only on May 19, 2010, explaining that PW-1 had no money. The Court observed that this had "nothing to do with the truthfulness or otherwise of the complaint."Beyond these inconsistencies, the Court recorded what was "uniformly common": PW-5 admitted PW-1 did not hand over the money in his presence, PW-10 admitted he did not witness the transaction, and PW-11 admitted that no one had seen the accused taking money.Demand of Bribe Is the Sine Qua NonThe Court recalled four of its decisions.P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. ((2015) 10 SCC 152). The Court held that proof of demand is the "gravamen of the offence" under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii). In its absence the charge would fail, and acceptance or recovery of the amount "dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto" is not sufficient. Failure to prove demand "would be fatal," and mere recovery would not entail conviction.Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) ((2023) 4 SCC 731). The Constitution Bench declared that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue is "a sine qua non" to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii). The prosecution must first prove the demand and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved by direct evidence, oral or documentary.Aman Bhatia v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013). A two-Judge Bench held that "mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient" to establish the charges. It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The Bench concluded that "mere possession and recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is not sufficient" under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d). Without evidence of demand, it cannot be said that the public servant used corrupt or illegal means or abused his position to obtain a pecuniary advantage under Section 13(1)(d).Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1952). The Court noted that this decision, authored by Justice Bhuyan, analysed and reiterated all of the above. There, since no one saw the appellant demanding the bribe, no one saw the complainant handing over the money, and acceptance was not proved either, the facts were held to be squarely covered by Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta and Aman Bhatia.Supreme Court's FindingsApplying these principles, the Court found that none of the witnesses had seen the accused demanding the bribe or PW-1 handing the money to him. "There is no evidence in this regard," the Court said. What remained was "only the uncorroborated testimony of PW-1." The Court also noted the inconsistent narration of the trap proceedings, and that a couple of witnesses had signed the seizure list because vigilance officials directed them to.The recovery of Rs. 5,000, which the trap team said matched the notes memorandum, was therefore not a substitute for proof of demand and acceptance. Under the cited precedents, those are facts in issue that the prosecution must itself establish. Here, the only evidence on the transaction was PW-1's own account. The Court concluded that "proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused as a fact in issue could not be proved by the prosecution."Final DecisionThe Court held that it could not be said that the charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act was proved, "not to speak of beyond all reasonable doubt." It set aside the Special Judge's judgment dated February 27, 2021 in Vigilance Case No. 17 of 2010 and the Jharkhand High Court's judgment dated July 21, 2022 in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 135 of 2021. It declared that the charge against Ajit Kumar under Sections 7 and 13 could not be proved, cleared him of the charges, and allowed the appeal.Click Here to Read the Official JudgmentConclusionThe Supreme Court held that where the prosecution fails to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the recovery of tainted currency notes cannot sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. In this case, no witness saw the demand or the handing over of the money, the prosecution depended on PW-1's uncorroborated testimony, and the accounts of the trap were inconsistent. On that basis the conviction was set aside.Important LinkLaw Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams