Setting aside a bribery conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court has cleared a Jharkhand education office employee who had already served his sentence, holding that recovery of marked notes cannot sustain a conviction when no witness saw the demand or the payment.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the 2021 conviction of a former Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikela, Jharkhand, for allegedly demanding and taking a Rs 5,000 bribe to release a school orderly’s salary, declaring that the charges under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act were never proved and that he stands cleared of them [Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand].
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, in a judgment authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on October 5, 2026, set aside the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and the Jharkhand High Court’s 2022 judgment affirming it.
Appeal pursued to clear his name
The appellant had been sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000 on each count. When notice was issued on July 24, 2026, his counsel told the Court that although he had served the sentence and paid the fine, he wanted to pursue the appeal “to get his name cleared.” The State argued that since the sentence had been served, the appeal had become an academic exercise.
The prosecution case
According to the prosecution, the complainant was appointed orderly at the Government High School, Sirum, on February 1, 2010 but was not paid his salary. When he approached the appellant, he was allegedly asked for Rs 5,000. He complained to the Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi on April 19, 2010, and after a verification report a trap was laid on May 20, 2010, with phenolphthalein-coated notes. The prosecution claimed the money was handed over at the appellant’s residence, recovered from under his bed or pillow, and that his hands turned the solution pink.
Counsel for the appellant, Advocate Shambo Nandy, argued that the demand was never proved, that the prosecution relied entirely on the complainant’s uncorroborated word and that the alleged handover took place inside the residence with no trap team member or shadow witness present.
“Inconsistencies galore” in the trap
Going through the evidence of the 12 prosecution witnesses, the Bench found the accounts of the trap contradictory. Some witnesses said the appellant was caught at his residence; others said he was apprehended in his office after returning with the complainant and then taken home, where the money was recovered. Trap team members admitted that the handover was not witnessed and no money was found on him in the office. Two office employees said they signed the seizure papers on the directions of vigilance officials without seeing anything recovered, and the Investigating Officer admitted that “no one had seen the accused taking money.” The Court noted:
“But what is uniformly common is that none of the witnesses have seen the accused demanding bribe or PW-1 handing over the bribe money to the accused. There is no evidence in this regard. It is only the uncorroborated testimony of PW-1.”
The Bench also observed that the verifying Inspector’s explanation for the month’s delay in his report, that the complainant could not arrange the money, “had nothing to do with the truthfulness or otherwise of the complaint.”
Demand is the “sine qua non”
Relying on P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Aman Bhatia v. State and its recent decision in Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential and that recovery of tainted money alone is not enough. Quoting Satyanarayana Murthy, it said:
“Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.”
Name cleared
Holding that demand and acceptance “could not be proved by the prosecution,” the Bench concluded that the charge was not proved, “not to speak of beyond all reasonable doubt.” It set aside both judgments and declared:
“It is declared that the charge framed against the appellant Ajit Kumar under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act could not be proved. Ajit Kumar is thus cleared of the said charges.”
Why The Bribery Conviction Judgment Matters
The judgment applies the Constitution Bench’s position in Neeraj Dutta to a typical trap case: marked notes and a positive phenolphthalein test do not prove a bribe unless the demand and the voluntary acceptance are themselves established. Where the handover happens out of sight of the trap team and no shadow witness is present, the complainant’s word alone will rarely be enough.
It also shows the Court will hear an appeal on merits even after the sentence has been served. A conviction for corruption carries lasting stigma, and the Bench went beyond allowing the appeal to expressly declare the appellant cleared of the charges.
Case Title: Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand [Criminal Appeal No. 4573 of 2026]
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1084
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Shambo Nandy for the Appellant; Advocate Mukherjee for the State of Jharkhand