Supreme Court Acquits Ajit Kumar: Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Must Be Independently Proved

1. Overview of the Supreme Court Ruling

In Ajit Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court revisited a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and emphatically reiterated a core principle of anti-corruption jurisprudence: recovery of tainted money by itself does not establish the offence unless the prosecution first proves the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

By judgment dated 5 October 2026 in 2026 INSC 1084, a Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the conviction of Ajit Kumar under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). Although the appellant had already completed the custodial sentence and paid the fine, the Court nonetheless examined the merits and ultimately cleared him of all charges.

The decision underscores two key legal and practical points:

  • Completion of sentence does not render an appeal infructuous where the accused seeks to remove the stigma of conviction.
  • A positive phenolphthalein test and recovery of currency, without reliable proof of demand and conscious acceptance of a bribe, cannot sustain a conviction under the PC Act.

2. Background Facts and Prosecution Story

2.1 Employment of the Complainant and Alleged Demand

The complainant, PW‑1 Durgapad Singh Munda, was appointed as an orderly/peon in Government High School, Sirum with effect from 01.02.2010. His grievance was that salary had not been disbursed.

The appellant, Ajit Kumar, was working as an Assistant in the District Education Office, Saraikella. According to the prosecution, PW‑1 approached Ajit Kumar for release of his salary, whereupon Ajit Kumar allegedly demanded ₹5,000 as illegal gratification for facilitating payment.

PW‑1 claimed that he was unwilling to pay a bribe and instead decided to approach the vigilance authorities.

2.2 Complaint to Vigilance Bureau and Verification

On 19.04.2010, PW‑1 submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. The SP assigned PW‑2, Inspector Shyamlal Champiya, to verify the allegations and report back.

Inspector Champiya stated that on 22.04.2010, he went with PW‑1 to the office of the District Education Officer at Saraikella and overheard Ajit Kumar demanding the bribe amount. However, the verification report was submitted only on 19.05.2010, almost a month later.

His explanation for this delay was that the complainant did not have the bribe amount earlier. The Supreme Court found this reasoning unsatisfactory, as the availability of money had no logical connection with the verification of whether a demand had in fact been made.

2.3 Registration of Case and Investigation

On submission of the verification report, Vigilance PS Case No. 17/2010 was registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act.

The investigation was entrusted to PW‑11 DSP Ramashish Raut, who completed the investigation and filed a chargesheet on 10.07.2010, along with sanction for prosecution. On 12.07.2010, the Special Judge took cognizance under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

Charges were framed on 14.12.2010. Ajit Kumar pleaded not guilty and sought trial.

In all, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including:

  • PW‑1: Complainant
  • PW‑2: Verifying Inspector
  • PW‑11: Investigating Officer

Several documents and trap-related materials were also produced.

3. Trap Proceedings and Conflicting Narratives

3.1 Pre-Trap Formalities

On 20.05.2010, the vigilance team assembled at the Vigilance Bureau office in Ranchi in the early morning hours. According to the evidence, the following steps were taken:

  • Currency totalling ₹5,000 (one note of ₹1,000 and eight notes of ₹500) was collected for the trap.
  • Phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution were used to demonstrate the colour reaction.
  • The numbers of the currency notes were recorded in a notes memorandum.
  • PW‑1 was instructed to pay the amount to Ajit Kumar only on demand.

The trap team then proceeded to the office of the District Education Officer at Saraikella at about 11:30 a.m.

3.2 Version of the Complainant (PW‑1)

PW‑1 deposed that:

  • He met Ajit Kumar at the office and then accompanied him to Ajit Kumar’s residence.
  • At the residence, he handed over the bribe amount of ₹5,000 to Ajit Kumar.
  • Ajit Kumar allegedly kept the money under his bed.
  • Thereafter, both returned to the office.
  • PW‑1 gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap team.
  • The vigilance officials entered the office, apprehended Ajit Kumar, took him back to his residence, and recovered the money from there.
  • Handwash of Ajit Kumar with the prepared solution turned pink.

3.3 Version of Trap Team Witnesses

The trap team members gave significantly divergent accounts:

  • PW‑2 (Inspector Champiya):

    • Stated that PW‑1 and Ajit Kumar went to the residence and returned after 10–15 minutes.
    • PW‑1 then allegedly disclosed that the amount had been kept at Ajit Kumar’s residence.
    • The trap team arrested Ajit Kumar and took him to his residence where ₹5,000 was recovered from under his bed.
    • The handwash was conducted later and turned pink.

  • PW‑3 (Inspector Shashi Bhushan):

    • Confirmed he was part of the trap team.
    • Said PW‑1 and Ajit Kumar left the office on a motorcycle and later returned.
    • PW‑1 then stated that he had given the bribe at the residence.
    • At the residence, Ajit Kumar allegedly recovered the notes from under his pillow, not just from under a bed.
    • According to this witness, the handwash was conducted at the residence itself.