The Chhattisgarh High Court on Friday quashed a trial court’s 2017 conviction of an education department accountant, ruling that mere recovery of currency notes alleged to be bribe money does not by itself establish the essential ingredient of the offence — a demand for illegal gratification.
A single Bench of Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi set aside the special court order that had sentenced Murali Prasad Choudhary, then posted as an accountant in the office of the District Education Officer (DEO) at Surajpur, to prison after his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court pronounced the judgment in Bilaspur.
Court: demand must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
The High Court emphasised that the prosecution must prove a demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The bench observed that without such proof, the recovery of currency notes alleged to be tainted cannot sustain a conviction.
"Demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence, and unless the prosecution proves such demand beyond reasonable doubt, mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused cannot lead to conviction," the court said.
According to court records, the complainant was Mohit Ram Rajwade, president and manager of Maa Saraswati Shiksha Samiti, who had approached the DEO office in 2014 seeking recognition for a school run by the organisation. The prosecution case stated that on June 20, 2014, Mr. Choudhary demanded ₹15,000 and asked for an immediate payment of ₹5,000, of which ₹4,900 was allegedly handed over.
Mr. Rajwade is reported to have approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Bilaspur on June 21, 2014, submitting a written complaint and subsequently recording conversations with Mr. Choudhary as directed by the ACB during verification. The prosecution relied on these recorded conversations, during which the alleged demanded amount was said to have been reduced to ₹8,000.
On June 30, 2014, the ACB conducted a trap operation. The prosecution case asserted that Mr. Choudhary accepted ₹8,000, counted the notes and kept them in the left pocket of his trousers before being apprehended. Based on these events, an FIR was registered and a case prosecuted in the special court.
Why the High Court set aside conviction
The High Court found gaps in the prosecution’s evidentiary chain, particularly with regard to establishing that an active demand for gratification had been made by the accused. The bench noted that recovery of cash in isolation — without independent corroboration of a demand — did not meet the standard required for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In its order, the court analysed the sequence of events relied upon by the prosecution — the initial alleged payment of ₹4,900, the recorded conversations, and the trap leading to recovery of ₹8,000 — and concluded that these facts, taken together, were insufficient to prove a demand beyond reasonable doubt.
Case timeline
| Year / Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014, June 20 | Alleged demand of ₹15,000; ₹4,900 paid immediately (prosecution case) |
| 2014, June 21 | Complainant lodged written complaint with ACB, recorded conversations |
| 2014, June 30 | ACB trap; alleged acceptance and recovery of ₹8,000 from accused |
| 2017 | Special court convicted and sentenced the accused |
| 2026, Sept 18 | Chhattisgarh High Court set aside conviction and acquitted the accused |
Implications for anti-corruption prosecutions
Legal observers say the judgment underscores the evidentiary threshold prosecutors must meet in corruption matters: establishing a demand or inducement is central to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. While trap operations and recoveries remain important investigative tools, courts require clear proof that an official solicited or accepted gratification as a quid pro quo.
The ACB and the special court records form the basis of prosecution in such cases. The High Court’s decision will likely be cited in future appeals where recovery of cash is the principal piece of evidence but independent proof of a demand is limited.
Next steps
With the High Court acquittal, the conviction and sentence imposed by the special court in 2017 have been set aside. The judgement may shape how the ACB approaches trap operations and corroboration of oral or recorded statements in future investigations.
- Accused: Murali Prasad Choudhary (then accountant, DEO office, Surajpur)
- Complainant: Mohit Ram Rajwade (president, Maa Saraswati Shiksha Samiti)
- Key legal point: Recovery of cash alone does not establish demand for illegal gratification
