Bombay HC: Panch stating that accused demanded money by winking his eye,no corroboration by informant, acquittal of accused proper

This leads me to deal with the crucial point involved in the present Appeal i.e. demand made by the respondent for illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/-. Minute perusal of evidence of the informant (PW-1) would clearly reveal that, it is totally silent on the aspect of demand on 10th April 2006. The panch witness (PW-2) in his testimony though has stated that, the respondent by winking his eyes to the PW-1 indicated demand of bribe amount. The said version of PW-2 is not at all corroborated by the prime witness i.e. informant (PW-1). The evidence on record is also absolutely silent about verification of pre-trap demand by the respondent on 6th April 2006. {Para 5}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2012

Decided On: 23.10.2020

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shridhar Madhavrao Murti

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Gadkari, J.

Citation: 2021 ALLMR(Cri) 2829,MANU/MH/1777/2020.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Statutory presumption U/S 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can arise only after the prosecution proves the foundational fact of 'demand'

 The basic requirement of demand is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the charges for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the proof of demand of illegal gratification is absolutely necessary as it is sine qua non of the offence. If the prosecution fails to prove this demand of illegal gratification, the charge against the appellant therefore, for the aforesaid offences would fail. It is clearly established in several judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in MANU/SC/0250/2023 : 2023:INSC:245 : (2023) 18 SCC 251, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the possession of the accused without proof of demand would not establish the offence under under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. In absence of proof of demand and illegal gratification and use of corrupt or illegal means to obtain any valuable or pecuniary advantage, it cannot be said that the offence of taking bribe is proved. Thus, the proof of demand has been held to be indispensable ingredient. Therefore, failure on the part of prosecution to prove demand and illegal gratification, would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the appellant/accused would not entail his conviction for the said offences. {Para 14}

15. It is settled law that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the said Act can arise only after the prosecution proves the foundational fact of 'demand'. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2007

Decided On: 24.12.2025

Dadasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/9193/2025,AIROnline 2025 BOM 1595.

Print Page