The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a public servant, Lavan Singh Churendra, who was earlier convicted by a Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Raipur, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court held that in the absence of conclusive proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification, mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The judgment was delivered on July 1, 2025, by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2018. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court on December 20, 2017.
Background
The case arose from a complaint filed by Baijnath Netam, who worked as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and Superintendent of the Pre-Matric Tribal Boys’ Hostel, Madanpur. He alleged that the appellant, Lavan Singh Churendra, then Mandal Sanyojak in the Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, demanded a bribe of ₹10,000 for sanctioning the students’ stipend for January 2013. According to the complaint, ₹2,000 was paid initially, and ₹8,000 was to be paid later. A trap was set up by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and Churendra was apprehended.
Trial Court Findings
Based on evidence from the complainant and trap witnesses, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹20,000 under each of the relevant sections. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
High Court’s Analysis
The High Court noted that:
- The complainant was dismissed from service before the date of the complaint.
- The appellant was not the competent authority to sanction the stipend; that role belonged to the Block Education Officer.
- The complainant had already withdrawn the stipend amount on January 11, 2013—prior to lodging the complaint.
- The complainant had been subject to a departmental inquiry initiated by the appellant, leading to a recovery order of ₹50,700 against him.
The Court observed that the complainant’s conduct was questionable and revealed a likely motive of enmity. It also found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, including discrepancies in the timeline of events and the admissibility of recorded conversations due to lack of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Legal Position Reiterated
Citing Supreme Court judgments in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), and State of Lokayuktha Police v. C.B. Nagaraj, the High Court reaffirmed:
“Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of currency notes itself does not constitute the offence unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.”
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of “demand” for illegal gratification and allowed the appeal.
The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges. However, the Court directed that his bail bonds shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of Section 437-A of the CrPC (now Section 481 of the BNSS).
