29.05.2025 vs Parveen Sharma on 15 July, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Reserved On: 29.05.2025 vs Parveen Sharma on 15 July, 2025

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                              2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755
                      AT JAMMU
CRAA No. 246/2014
                                                    Reserved on: 29.05.2025
                                                    Pronounced on: 15.07.2025


State of J&K                                                   .....Appellant (s)

q
                       Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
                  vs
Parveen Sharma                                               ..... Respondent(s)
                       Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
                                Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Advocate.
                                Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Advocate.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
                                 JUDGMENT

01. This appeal has been directed against the judgement dated 21.01.2014,

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption), Jammu, [“the

trial court’], vide which respondent came to be acquitted of the charge, for offence

under Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 1949 (“the PC Act“),

read with Section 161 of Ranbir Penal Code [“RPC”].

02. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall be

apt to have an overview of the background facts.

03. As factual narration would unfurl, One Sham Singh lodged a written

complaint before the SSP, Vigilance Organisation Jammu (VOJ), stating inter alia

that he had applied for the registration of an SSI Unit namely “SHABNAM

INDUSTRIES” at Chak Majra, Tehsil Bishnah, Jammu, with the District

Industries Centre, (DIC), Jammu, and his file was lying with the Head Clerk,

Parveen Sharma (the respondent) for issuance of the Registration Certificate. It

was alleged by the complainant that respondent demanded Rs. 5,000/- bribe for

processing the file, by 07.05.2009. The complainant approached VOJ for action
2 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

and FIR No. 25/2009 for aforesaid offences came to be registered against the

respondent.

3.1 A trap laying team, headed by Sh. Khalil Ahmed Poswal, Dy.SP came to be

constituted on 07.11.2009. As per the prosecution case, the complainant narrated

the story to the trap team, including independent witnesses, PW Sham Lal

Sharma, AE, and Kuldeep Abrol of PHE Department. He produced Rs. 5,000/- in

the form of 10 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination each. The numbers of

these notes were recorded and retained by the independent witnesses on paper

slips. These currency notes were dusted with Phenolphthalein powder. PW Sham

Lal Sharma, AE, one of the independent witnesses, was asked to touch the

currency notes and wash his hands in a solution of Sodium carbonate, which

turned pink upon reaction. In this manner, the reaction of Phenolphthalein powder

with Sodium carbonate solution was explained to the trap team. The dusted

currency notes were kept in the left upper pocket of the complainant’s shirt and he

was instructed not to shake hands with anyone and to hand over said money to the

respondent upon demand. PW Kuldeep Abrol, AE, the second independent

witness, was asked to act as a shadow witness and was directed to stay as close to

the complainant as possible, to listen the conversation between complainant and

the respondent-accused and give signal to the trap team members.

3.2 After the demonstration, the trap team, at around 4.00 PM reached Dogra

Chowk, Jammu and left their vehicles there. While the complainant and shadow

witness proceeded to meet the respondent-accused in the DIC Office, other

members of the team took their respective positions in the office of DIC at

Exhibition Ground, Jammu, maintaining a reasonable distance and waiting for the

signal from the shadow witness. After 5 to 7 minutes, the shadow witness gave

the pre-fixed signal, prompting the trap team members to rush into the office of
3 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

the Manager, Economic Investigation, DIC Jammu. The complainant, Sham

Singh, who was present there, stated that respondent had demanded and accepted

the bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- from him with his right hand, kept the tainted

money in the drawer of his office table and handed over the file of SSI Unit

“SHABNAM INDUSTRIES”. The version of the complainant was corroborated

by the shadow witness.

3.3 When inquired, it transpired that respondent was a Statistical Officer in the

DIC Office. Thereafter, a solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared. The

independent witness PW Kuldeep Abrol, AE, rinsed his right-hand finger in the

solution, but the colour of the solution did not change. However, it was alleged

that when respondent rinsed his right-hand finger in the solution, the colour of

sodium carbonate solution turned pink, which was preserved and sealed in a clean

glass bottle. Again, a fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and when

respondent rinsed his left hand finger in that solution, the solution remained

unchanged. This second solution was also preserved and sealed in a separate clean

glass bottle.

3.4 The independent witness PW Sham Lal, AE searched the drawer of the

office table of the respondent, from where the bribe amount came to be recovered.

The independent witness tallied the numbers of the currency notes recovered from

the drawer of the office table of the respondent, and the serial numbers of the G.C

Notes already noted down by them during the pre-trap proceedings and found that

the serial numbers were same.

3.5 The investigation culminated in the charge-sheet against the respondent for

offence under Section 5 (2) P.C. Act read with Section 161 RPC.

04. The respondent came to be charged by the trial court on 28.10.2010,

whereby he pleaded innocence and claimed trial, prompted the trial court to ask
4 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

for the prosecution evidence. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge

examined almost all the witnesses, a brief resume whereof is given below:-

05. PW Sham Singh, the complainant has stated that in 2009, he approached

DIC, Jammu for registration of his firm under the name and style of “SHABNAM

INDUSTRIES”. He met one Raj Kumari, who processed his case and demanded

Rs. 5,000/- bribe for issuance of the registration certificate. He met her on various

occasions in October 2009 and later on 6 th and 7th of September 2009. The said

Raj Kumari told him that if he refuses to pay, his work would not be done. He

approached VOJ on 07.11.2009 and lodged the report. A case was registered and

a trap team was constituted under the supervision of Dy.SP. He had brought Rs.

5,000/-, comprised of 10 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination. Two officers

of the PHE Department were called in the Vigilance Office, who noted down

serial numbers of the said currency notes, which were then subjected to

Phenolphthalein powder. Pre-trap proceedings were recorded. PW Kuldeep Abrol

was kept as a shadow witness, who put the aforesaid bribe amount in the pocket

of the complainant and he was asked not to touch the money. PW Kuldeep Abrol

was asked to remain close to him so that he could hear the conversation between

him and the accused. The independent witness was also asked to give pre-fixed

signal during the giving and taking of the bribe money. He accompanied the trap

team to the office of the accused. Since Raj Kumari was not present in the office,

he enquired about his file from the respondent, who informed him that file was

lying with him. He told the accused that he had brought the bribe money. Accused

asked him to handover the money to him. On demand of the accused, he gave the

bribe money to him, who took the same in his right hand and dropped it in the

office drawer. PW Kuldeep Abrol gave the pre-fixed signal, following which the

trap team members rushed to the spot and caught the accused. The drawer of the
5 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

accused contained the bribe money, which was subsequently recovered. The

numbers of the currency notes were verified by the independent witness and they

tallied the numbers recorded earlier during the pre-trap proceedings. His file was

also seized. Accused was subjected to a hand wash test and the solution turned

pink.

5.1 The prosecution sought to declare the witness hostile, due to his

introduction of one Raj Kumari as the person who demanded the bribe. The

prosecution was allowed to cross-examine the witness on this point.

5.2 On cross-examination by the prosecution, he has stated that he made his

statement under Section 164 CrPC at the behest of VOJ personnels. On 6 th, he did

not meet the accused. He met said Raj Kumari only. The witness has admitted that

he did not tell the Magistrate that he was making the statement at the behest of

VOJ. However, he admitted the contents of the complaint, EXT-P/1. He has also

admitted the FIR EXT-P1/1, pre-trap memo, EXT-P/5 and also EXT-P/5/1 to

EXT-P-5/IV, EXT-P/II and EXT-P/4/A.

5.3 In cross-examination by the defence, he has stated that he handed over his

papers to Raj Kumari and twice went to meet her in DIC Office to enquire about

the status of his file. The witness has admitted that it was Raj Kumari who had

demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe money for completing his work and EXT-P1 was

written only after the trap was executed. He was told by the Vigilance people that

since the bribe money was recovered from the accused, therefore, the complaint

had to be lodged against him only. Consequently, he filed the complaint against

the respondent-accused at the behest of VOJ. He was instructed to give his

statement before the Magistrate in the manner suggested by VOJ. The witness has

also admitted that he received his file on 7 th November from the receipt section

against his signatures as a token of receipt of the file. The witness has
6 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

categorically admitted that neither there is any noting of the accused on his file

nor accused has anything to do with his file. The room where accused was seated

also contained seats of Raj Kumari and other staff members, including the Section

Officer. A computer was positioned in front of the accused. The witness also goes

on to admit that when he went to hand over the bribe money in the room of the

accused, PW Kuldeep Abrol was standing outside the room. When he went to the

office room in search of Raj Kumari, she was found absent. He returned and

informed VOJ about her absence, who then advised him to hand over the money

to whosoever makes demand from him. Later, when he went into the room, he

saw the accused sitting in his chair and told him that he had come with the money

asked by Raj Kumari to which accused asked him to give the money to him. The

request of the prosecution for re-examination of the complainant was declined by

the trial court.

06. PW Rajinder Parihar is witness to the dusting of the currency notes,

produced by the complainant, numbers whereof were noted by the independent

witnesses and the demonstration of the pre-trap proceedings.

07. PW Surinder Kumar Gupta, has stated that on 07.11.2009 at around

4.PM, 6 to 7 people rushed towards his room while he was busy in his office

work. The said people intercepted the accused and thereafter, he rushed to the

office of the GM. Later he came to know that accused was caught by the

Vigilance and bribe money of Rs. 5,000/- came to be recovered from him. He has

admitted the personal search memo EXT-P2/1, of the accused. In cross-

examination, he has stated that his section processes registration of Industrial

Units and final document is issued by the GM and released by proper entry in the

receipt and dispatch register.

7 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

08. PW Rohit Koul, the FSL Expert, has admitted his report EXT-P/3. He has

stated that he received the exhibits on 16.11.2009 and issued the report on

31.12.2009. He has stated that exhibit 836/09, which contained right hand wash

and was pink coloured, after examination was found to be Phenolphthalein and

sodium carbonate.

09. PW Inspector Ashok Singh Jasrotia and PW Inspector Jatan Ji Matoo

are witnesses to the pre-trap proceedings and record of post-trap proceedings.

They have stated that trap was laid and the bribe money came to be recovered

from the drawer of the accused. When accused was subjected to hand wash test,

the sodium carbonate solution turned pink. He was told by the complainant and

PW Kuldeep Abrol that accused demanded the bribe money and accepted the

same in his right hand and put it in his office drawer, which later came to be

recovered. They, however, have denied the suggestion that they were told by the

complainant that it was Raj Kumari, who had demanded the money and who on

the date of trap was absent.

10. PW Shiv Kumar Sharma is the GM of DIC, who has submitted the

posting order and service book of the accused to the investigating agency. He has

stated that during his tenure, the complainant never made any grievance or

allegation of demand for a bribe by the accused. He has also reflected his

ignorance about any noting of the accused in the file of the complainant.

11. PW Kuldeep Abrol is the shadow witness. He has stated that on

07.11.2009, when he was working as AE in the PHE Department, he and PW

Sham Lal visited the VOJ office on the instructions of the XEN, where they were

introduced to complainant by Dy.SP Poswal. The complainant informed them that

he had submitted a complaint against the accused, an employee of DIC, regarding

demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from him in lieu of processing of his case for
8 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

registration of jute bag industry. The bribe amount was brought by the

complainant and he and PW Sham Lal noted down the numbers of the currency

notes, which consisted of 10 notes of Rs.500/- each denomination. The said notes

were dusted with Phenolphthalein powder and a demonstration was made by the

vigilance people about the reaction of the powder with sodium carbonate solution.

PW Kuleep Abrol was asked to remain close to the complainant and try to hear

the conversation, which may take place between the complainant and the accused.

He was also directed to give a gesture by scratching his hair on the demand and

acceptance of the bribe money. He, along with other trap team members and the

complainant went to the office of the accused. The complainant rushed to the

room of the accused, where the accused enquired about the money. The

complainant handed over the money to the accused and accused handed over the

file to the complainant. The accused dropped the money in his office drawer. He

exhibited the gesture as desired, upon which the trap team members came to the

spot and caught the accused. Thereafter, he was asked to recover the money,

which he recovered from the drawer of the accused. They tallied the serial

numbers of the currency notes with the numbers already scribed by him in their

respective slips and they were found to be identical. The TLO asked one of the

employees to prepare the sodium carbonate solution. The accused when dipped

his right hand in the said solution, it turned pink. The file, lying with the

complainant also came to be seized. The witness has affirmed the recording of

pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. In cross-examination, he has stated that earlier

also he has taken part as an independent witness in 2-3 trap cases. He was told by

the complainant that accused had been demanding Rs. 5,000/- from him for

registration of unit. The complainant went into the room of the accused and he

stood around 3 to 4 feet away from the entrance of the office and was moving to
9 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

and fro outside the room. There was no computer on the office table of the

accused. The accused and complainant were facing each other, i.e. the back of the

complaint was towards him. There were two more tables in the same room, and

two other employees were sitting in their chairs. He saw the accused receiving

money from the complainant in his right hand and dropping the same in his office

drawer without counting it.

12. PW Sham Lal Sharma, is the independent witness. He has stated that on

07.11.2009, he was deputed by his officer to accompany PW Kuldeep Abrol with

respect to a requisition moved by the vigilance organisation. They were

introduced to the complainant, who had come with the bribe money of Rs. 5,000/,

in the shape of 10 currency notes of Rs. 500/- each denomination. He and PW

Kuldeep Abrol recorded serial numbers of said notes on a separate piece of paper

and kept it with them. The currency notes were dusted with Phenolphthalein

powder. He was asked to touch the dusted notes, which he did and when his hands

were washed with sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink, which according to

the trap laying officer was reaction of Phenolphthalein powder. After the trap

demonstration, they proceeded to the office of the accused. The complainant was

followed by the shadow witness PW Kuldeep Abrol. The complaint and the

shadow witness went to the office room of the accused. He and other trap team

members remained in the nearby vicinity. After some time, shadow witness gave

a pre-designed gesture, whereupon he along with members of the trap team rushed

to the office of the accused. The complainant and PW Kuldeep Abrol told them

that accused had demanded and accepted the money from the complainant with

his right hand and he had dropped it in his office drawer. Thereafter, solution of

sodium carbonate was prepared and when accused dipped his right hand finger in

the solution, it turned pink which was separately seized. The witness has admitted
10 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

the post-trap proceedings and pre-trap proceedings. In cross-examination, he has

stated that he had not witnessed the demand and acceptance of bribe. From the

place at which he and team members were waiting for the gesture of PW Kuldeep

Abrol, they could see Kuldeep Abrol, standing outside the office room of the

accused. There were other office tables in the room of the accused. He had

recovered money from the drawer of the accused.

13. PW Khalil Ahmed Poswal was entrusted the job of laying trap against the

accused, pursuant to the direction of SSP vigilance, PW Shakeel Ahmed Bheigh,

on 07.11.2009. He has stated that team was constituted. Two Independent

witnesses of PHE Mechanical Division, PWs Kuleep Abrol and Sham Lal were

also associated with the complainant. The bribe money of Rs. 5,000/- was brought

by the complainant as per the direction. The independent witnesses noted down

serial numbers of the currency notes, which were 10 in numbers of Rs. 500/-

denomination each. Phenolphthalein powder was brought by Constable Rajinder

Parihar, with which the currency notes were dusted. A solution of Sodium

carbonate was prepared. PW Sham Lal was asked to touch the dusted notes and

dip his fingers in the solution, which he did and the solution turned pink. This

way, he demonstrated the team members about the reaction of the

Phenolphthalein powder on sodium carbonate solution. PW Kuldeep Kumar was

kept as shadow witness and he directed him to remain close to the complainant

and try to witness the giving and taking of the bribe money. The dusted notes

were given to the complainant and he was asked not to touch the notes, until the

demand was made by the accused. After the pre- trap proceedings, they proceeded

to the office of the accused at Exhibition Ground, Jammu. The complainant

followed by Sham Lal proceeded to the room of the accused. PW Kuleep Abrol

gave a pre-designed gesture, upon which he along with team members rushed to
11 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

the room of the accused. The complainant and PW Sham Lal pointed towards the

accused. The complainant told him that accused had demanded the bribe money

and he handed over the same to the accused, who accepted it with his right hand

and dropped it in his office drawer. The complainant also told him that accused

had given him the file. The said file was seized. Upon his direction, the sodium

carbonate solution was prepared and when accused dipped his right hand in the

solution, it turned pink. The said solution was sealed. PW Sham Lal, recovered

the money from the drawer of the accused. The independent witnesses compared

serial numbers of the currency notes with the numbers already noted down by

them and found that numbers tallied with each other. The accused was arrested.

He recorded post-trap proceedings in the presence of witness. In cross-

examination, he has stated that he was told by the complainant that accused was

demanding money from him. During the trap proceedings, he was standing at a

distance of 13 feet away from the office of the accused. However, the shadow

witness was staying outside the office of the accused. He did not find any noting

of the accused in the file of the complainant. The file did bear the dispatch

number of the same day.

14. PW Dr. Shakeel Ahmed Beigh was SSP Vigilance in 2009. He has stated

that complainant came up with a report EXT-1 to him. He directed registration of

FIR EXT-13. He constituted a trap team on the command of Dy. SP Poswal and

entrusted investigation to Inspector Rajinder Salgotra

15. PW Rajinder Salgotra is investigation officer of the case, who has

admitted the relevant documents, pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. According to

the witness, offence under Section 5 (2) PC Act read with Section 161 RPC were

established against the accused. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he

came to know during investigation that in the office of the accused, there used to
12 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

be a lady clerk namely, Ramesh Kumari. He has admitted that the complainant did

not tell him that when and where the accused had demanded the money and that

said demand was made in whose presence.

16. This concludes the prosecution evidence.

17. It is stand of the respondent in his statement under Section 342 CrPC that

neither he met the complainant nor demanded any bribe. The complainant had no

official work with him. He has been falsely implicated in the case. He was

suddenly surrounded by the vigilance people and made to undergo hand wash.

Neither he made any demand of illegal gratification from the complainant nor

money was recovered from him. There was no drawer in his office table as it was

a computer desktop only. He was told by his fellow employees in the office of the

General Manager that complainant had come and enquired about Ramesh Kumari

and obtained the document. The respondent also stated that prosecution witnesses

made a false statement. He also stated that once the complainant had received his

document, there was no question of him turning to him and offering the bribe.

According to the respondent, the prosecution case is stage managed. Though

according to the investigating agency, the solution turned pink, however, it

remained transparent.

18. The accused examined one witness in defence, the relevant excerpt whereof

is as below:-

19. DW Tashi Angmo is Senior Assistant in the office of DIC Jammu. She has

stated that in October/November 2009, she was working as receipt dispatch clerk

in the DIC Office, Jammu. On 07.12.2009, she put dispatch No.

1122/PROV/10809-10 dated 07.12.2009 on registration file of the complainant,

issued by the General Manager, DIC on 05.12.2009. The Certificate was received

by the unit holder, who signed the dispatch register, as a token of receipt of the
13 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

said file. The witness produced the dispatch register in original in the trial court.

The defence witness goes on to state that one Ramesh Kumari, working in the

Planning Section at the relevant time, came to her at around 4.00 PM on

07.11.2009 along with the complainant unit holder and requested her to put

dispatch number on his certificate. Accordingly, she put the dispatch number. The

witness has also produced the attendance register in the trial court, whereby the

respondent-accused was on leave on 04.11.2009. In cross-examination, she has

stated that she certainly remembers that Ramesh Kumari, met her along with the

complainant on 07.11.2009 because Ramesh Kumari was a new appointee.

20. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

21. Learned trial court on critical examination of the evidence led on rival sides

has come to conclude that evidence nowhere links the respondent with the process

of the file of the complainant and once he was not required to perform any official

act regarding registration of the complainant’s unit, there was no question of the

complainant to have approached the respondent for the performance of such act.

21.1 Learned trail Court found the testimony of defence witness, DW Tashi

Angmo, credible who has stated that it was Ramesh Kumari, posted at the

relevant time in the planning section of DIC Jammu, who along with the

complainant came to her on 07.11.2009 with complainant’s file regarding

registration of his unit and she was asked to put dispatch number on the

registration certificate. Learned trial Court is of the view that the presence of said

Ramesh Kumari, clerk in the office of DIC on 07.11.2009, is proved from the

evidence of the defence witness and the attendance register of November 2009.

21.2 Learned trail Court is also of the view that once complainant had already

received his file from the dispatch clerk, there was no occasion for the

complainant to go back to the office of the respondent and pay the bribe.
14 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

21.3 It is also observation of learned trial Court that since the shadow witness,

PW Kuldeep Abrol was not stationed and was moving to and fro outside the

office of the respondent, he had no occasion to observe as to what transpired

between the complainant and the respondent, particularly in view of the fact that

complainant’s back was towards him.

21.4 Learned trial Court has also underlined contradictions in the statements of

shadow witness PW Kuldeep Abrol with the prosecution case because it is the

prosecution case that respondent put the bribe amount in the drawer of his office

table, whereas PW Kuldeep Abrol has stated that there was no computer table

before the respondent. The statement of shadow witness, according to learned trial

Court also contradicts PW Khalil Poswal, who categorically admitted the

existence of a computer on the office table of the accused and that the tainted

money was recovered from the drawer of the said computer table, whereas PW

Kuleeep Abrool has stated there was no computer on the office table of the

accused.

21.5 According to learned trial Court the complainant throughout has maintained

the stand that he did not meet the respondent between October 2009 to

07.11.2009. He had understanding with the lady clerk, Ramesh Kumari only. The

complainant also emphasized in his statement that on the day of occurrence on

07.11.2009, when he went to the office of DIC with the trap team, he initially

searched for the said lady clerk, which is sufficient to demolish the prosecution

case that respondent at any point of time made any demand of bribe.

21.6 Learned trial Court has observed that mere recovery of tainted money

would not be sufficient to bring home the charge against the respondent, if

demand of illegal gratification is not culled out from the evidence of the

prosecution.

15 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

21.7 Learned trial Court has concluded that in view of the complainant turning

hostile during the trial and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, the

prosecution has failed to establish a direct link between the demand and

acceptance of the bribe by the respondent. The prosecution, according to learned

trial Court, has failed to prove that the money alleged to have been recovered

from the drawer of office table, was consciously received by the respondent as

reward or illegal gratification.

22. The appellant has questioned the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded

by learned trial Court inter alia on the grounds that learned trial Court has failed

to appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective and the conclusion

drawn is against the overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution. It is

contention of the appellant that important pieces of evidence have been ignored

by learned trial Court and impugned judgment is based on surmises and

conjectures, thus liable to be set-aside.

23. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG has relied upon Neeraj Dutta vs

State, (Govt.of N.C.T. of Delhi);AIR 2013 SC 330, to contend that even if a

complainant turns hostile, the demand and acceptance of bribe can be proved by

way of oral testimony of remaining prosecution witnesses or documentary

evidence. According to learned Sr. AAG, the culpability of the respondent, in the

present case can be inferred from the facts and circumstances attending the case

and prosecution succeeded to prove that respondent not only demanded illegal

gratification from the complainant but same can be recovered from the drawer of

his office table, which is sufficient to infer culpability on the part of the

respondent, therefore, he is liable to be convicted.

24. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned senior counsel has defended the impugned

judgment primarily on the ground that since the complainant turned hostile the
16 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

conclusion drawn by the trial Court does not call for any interference by this

Court. According to learned senior, prosecution has failed to prove that

respondent at any point of time demanded or accepted the bribe from the

complainant.

25. A Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta

(supra) has ruled that prosecution, in order to bring home the charge under the

Prevention of Corruption Act against an accused, is obliged to prove the demand

of illegal gratification followed by its acceptance, as a matter of fact either by

direct evidence or documentary evidence or by the circumstantial evidence. It was

clarified that mere acceptance or receipt of illegal gratification, without anything

more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The

Apex Court also held that in the event the complainant turns hostile or has died or

is unavailable to give his evidence during the trial, the prosecution can prove the

demand of illegal gratification by letting in the evidence of any other witness or

by the documentary evidence or by the circumstantial evidence.

25.1 The conclusion summarised by the Apex Court in Para 68, for the ease of

reference is reproduced below:-

“68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:

• 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 under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
• In order to bring home the 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.
• Further, the fact in issue, namely, 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.

• In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in
mind:

17 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

• 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 of the Act. In such a
case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
• On the other hand, 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 is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
• In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, 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 under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i)
and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to
bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe
giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence.
Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver
and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would
be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
• The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or
obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of
an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral
and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the
material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact
while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the
accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
•In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let
in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by
letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either
orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by
circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of
acquittal of the accused public servant.

• In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue,
Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal
gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said
Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal
presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also
subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of
the Act.

18 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

• We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct
from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a
mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.

(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct
from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a
mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.

76. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench
is answered as under:

In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary
evidence), it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of
a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

[Underlining for emphasis]

26. In view of the aforesaid principle of law expounded by the Apex Court in

Neeraj Dutta, at the foremost I find myself in agreement with learned senior

AAG that in the event the complainant turns hostile, as he did in the present case,

or if evidence of the complainant is not available for one reason or the other, the

prosecution can prove the demand of illegal gratification by way of testimony of

any other witness or by documentary evidence or by circumstantial evidence.

26.1 It is also evident from the aforesaid summarisation of Hon’ble Supreme

Court that mere acceptance of bribe by itself is not sufficient to constitute an

offence under the PC Act and prosecution is obliged to prove by way of clinching

evidence the demand of tainted money on behalf of the accused. The Apex Court

in Neeraj Dutta has clearly observed in Class (d) of its summarisation that in

order to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a

public servant, the prosecution has to bear two aspects in mind; (i) if there is

offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public

servant and the public servant accepts the offer of the bribe giver and receives the

tainted money, it is a case of acceptance under the PC Act and in that a case there

need not be a prior demand by the public servant and (ii) if there is demand of
19 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

bribe by a public servant 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 and in that case, the demand of bribe for illegal gratification

emanates from the public servant. In both the cases, clarified the Supreme Court,

the prosecution is required to prove the offer of the bribe giver and demand by the

public servant respectively as a fact in issue. The Supreme Court clearly observed

that mere acceptance or receipt of illegal gratification or recovery of tainted

amount without anything else is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the

PC Act. Therefore, the prosecution, in order to establish guilt of the accused, has

to prove the demand of illegal gratification by the accused and its acceptance by

him as a fact in issue by way of oral or documentary or circumstantial evidence.

27. The prosecution case is that the complainant namely Sham Singh laid a

written complaint to SSP, VOJ stating inter alia that he applied for registration of

SSI unit under the name and style of “SHABNAM INDUSTRIES” at Chak

Majra, Tehsil Bishnah, Jammu with the District Industries Centre. His file was

lying with the respondent, a head clerk for issuance of registration certificate. The

allegation against the respondent is that he demanded Rs. 5,000/- bribe from the

complainant to process his file by 07.11.2009. A trap was laid to catch the

respondent red handed, accepting bribe from the complainant and according to the

prosecution, when the shadow witness PW Kuldeep Abrol, AE, gave a pre-fixed

signal, the trap team rushed to the office of the respondent, the complainant

pointed towards the respondent and stated that he had demanded and accepted the

bribe amount of Rs. 5,000/- with his right hand and kept the tainted money in the

drawer of his office table and also handed over his file to him. Version of the

complainant was corroborated by the shadow witness and on this, the tainted
20 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

money, as per the prosecution case, came to be recovered from the drawer of the

office table of the respondent.

27.1 It is further case of the prosecution that when respondent was asked to dip

his right hand fingers in the sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink, which

established the acceptance of tainted money by him. According to the prosecution,

the numbers of the currency notes allegedly recovered from the drawer of the

office table of the respondent, tallied with the numbers noted down by the

independent witnesses.

28. The prosecution in order to establish guilt of the respondent has primarily

relied upon the testimonies of the complainant PW Sham Singh, the shadow

witness PW Kuleep Abrol and the independent witness PW Sham Lal Sharma.

The official witnesses PW Kuldeep Abrol, designated by the investigating agency

as a shadow witness and PW Sham Lal Sharma have made an endeavour to

support the prosecution case that when the shadow witness PW Kuldeep Abrol

scratched his head and give a pre-fixed signal, the trap team rushed to the office

of the respondent, where PW Kuldeep Abrol and the complainant told the trap

team members that respondent demanded and accepted the tainted money with his

right hand and put it in the drawer of his computer table and the tainted money

came to be recovered from the said drawer. The official witnesses also testified

that when respondent rinsed his fingers of right hand in the sodium carbonate

solution, it turned pink, which according to the prosecution proved the acceptance

of bribe by the respondent. However, the complainant PW Sham Singh, who had

stated in his statement under Section 164-A CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate

on 27.11.2009 that respondent demanded the bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for processing

his file regarding issuance of registration certificate, introduced altogether a new

story in the witness box and falsified the prosecution version. The complainant
21 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

has stated that he approached DIC Jammu for registration of his firm, where he

met one Raj Kumari, who had to process his case. According to the complainant,

it was said Raj Kumari who made a demand of Rs. 5,000/- bribe from him for

processing his case. He met Raj Kumari on various occasions to enquire about the

status of his case. According to the complainant, he was directed by said Raj

Kumari to pay the bribe amount by 07.11.2009 and when on the appointed date,

he along with trap team went to the office of DIC Jammu, said Raj Kumari was

found absent. The complainant goes on to narrate that he came back and told the

vigilance people that the person who had demanded the bribe from him was not

present in the office, but the vigilance people insisted to hand over the money to

whosoever makes demand. Then he went to the office of the respondent, who was

sitting in his chair. He told him that he had come with the money which was

asked by said Raj Kumari and the respondent asked the complainant to hand over

the money to him and therefore, he gave money to the respondent, which he put in

his drawer. The complainant also stated that the complaint EXTP-1 was written

after the trap was over as he was told by the vigilance people that since money

had been recovered from the respondent, therefore, the case was to be lodged

against him only.

28.1 According to the complainant it was Raj Kumari who demanded the bribe

and respondent never made any demand of bribe or illegal gratification from the

complainant. Though according to the complainant, when he told the respondent

that he had brought the money, which was demanded by Raj Kumari, the

respondent accepted the said money and put it in the drawer of his office table,

however, as already discussed, mere acceptance of tainted money by the accused

or its recovery is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the PC Act.
22 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

29. The prosecution was obliged to prove by credible evidence that it was the

respondent-accused who demanded bribe from the complainant and accepted the

same as illegal gratification. Apart from the complainant, any other witness, who

in the circumstances of the case, could prove the demand and acceptance of bribe

by the respondent is PW Kuleep Abrol, the shadow witness. The shadow witness

was directed by the investigating agency to remain close to the complainant and

try to hear the conversation of the complainant with the respondent. The shadow

witness PW Kuleep Abrol in cross-examination has stated that he stood around 3

to 4 feet away from the entrance door of the office of the respondent and was

moving to and fro outside the said room. He also stated that he saw the accused

and complainant facing each other and back of the complaint was towards him. In

the circumstances, it has been rightly observed by the trial Court that shadow

witness PW Kuleep Abrol had no occasion to observe as to what transpired

between the complainant and the respondent, particularly in view of the fact that

complainant’s back was towards him.

30. I find myself in the agreement with the observation of learned trial Court

that having regard to the nature of offence, the prosecution was obliged to show

that respondent demanded the bribe and received it for processing complainant’s

file and issuance of the registration certificate. According to the complainant PW

Sham Singh, it was Ramesh Kumari who had to process his case and she

demanded the bribe amount for the said purpose. The trap laying Officer PW

Khalil Ahmad Poswal has also admitted that when he examined the registration

file of the complainant, he did not find any noting of the respondent on the said

date. Once respondent was not required to perform any official act regarding

registration of the complainant’s unit or issuance of registration certificate, it is

rightly observed by learned trial Court that there was no question of the
23 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

complainant to approach the respondent and for the respondent to demand the

bribe.

30.1 It is fortified from the testimony of the solitary defence witness, DW Tashi

Angmo who at the relevant time was working as dispatch clerk in the DIC office.

She has stated that the complainant along with one Ramesh Kumari, an employee

of the planning Section came to her at around 4.00 PM on the day of occurrence.

Said Ramesh Kumari was carrying the complainant’s file regarding registration of

unit and she was asked by said Ramesh Kumari to put dispatch number on the

registration certificate, which she did and the complainant put his signatures in the

dispatch register as a receipt of acknowledgement. The statement of the sole

defence witness, fortifies the claim of the complainant in the trial court that

respondent had no role to play or perform any official act in the processing of file

regarding registration of the unit of the complainant and that when he went to the

office of the respondent on the date of occurrence, the said lady clerk Raj Kumari

or Ramesh Kumari was found absent, but he was insisted by the vigilance people

to handover the money to whosoever was present in the office and later the

complaint EXTP-1 came to be prepared and filed against the respondent, because

the tainted money was put in the drawer by the respondent only.

31. Another aspect of the case which needs attention is that once complainant

had already received the certificate from the dispatcher DW Tashi Angmo on

07.11.2009 at 4.00 PM, there was no occasion for him to go to the office of the

respondent and pay the tainted money.

32. Having regard to what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, the

prosecution, in the present case, has failed to prove, by credible and clinching

evidence, the prior demand of illegal gratification and voluntary acceptance

thereof by the respondent as a matter of fact.

24 CRAA No. 246/2014

2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755

33. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the present appeal, hence it

is dismissed along with connected CrlM(s).

34. Record of the trial court be returned.

(Rajesh Sekhri)
Judge

Jammu
15.07.2025
Abinash
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes