Citation: Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 4573 of 2026 (arising from SLP), decided on 05.10.2026 | 2026 INSC 1084
Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the sine qua non of the offence, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, even with a positive phenolphthalein test, is not enough to convict without proof of demand. An uncorroborated complainant’s testimony, with inconsistencies in the trap team’s account, does not meet this standard.
The Supreme Court has acquitted a Jharkhand education office clerk in a bribery case, years after he had already served his four-year sentence, because the prosecution never proved that he demanded a bribe.
Ajit Kumar, an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella, was accused of demanding Rs 5,000 from a newly appointed school orderly to release his unpaid salary. After a trap laid by the Vigilance Bureau on 20 May 2010, the Special Judge convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The Jharkhand High Court upheld this in 2022. By the time the Supreme Court issued notice, he had served the sentence and paid the fine, but he continued the appeal to clear his name. Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar went through the evidence and found “inconsistencies galore” among the trap witnesses. Some said that he was arrested at his residence, others that he was arrested in his office, and that the notes were then recovered from under his bed or pillow. What was common to all was that no witness had seen him demand a bribe or take it. The complainant went with the accused to his house without the trap team, no independent witness saw the transaction, and the only evidence of demand and acceptance was the complainant’s own uncorroborated word. Two office staff said they had just signed papers as the vigilance officials told them to, and one said he deposed that notes were recovered on the police’s direction. The court relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta and on P. Satyanarayana Murthy, Aman Bhatia and Jaswinder Singh, which hold that proof of demand is the very foundation of the offence, and that mere recovery of tainted money is not enough. It set aside the conviction and the High Court’s judgment, and declared that the charge could not be proved against him and he stands cleared.