Mere Recovery Of Money From Accused Does Not Amount To Bribery In Absence Of Demand: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a Forest Officer who was accused of demanding and accepting a Rs 3000 bribe.

The Court held that mere possession of tainted currency notes cannot constitute bribery unless there is proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification.

After going through the evidence, Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that: “In the absence of demand of any illegal gratification and acceptance thereof, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused.”

It was alleged that in 2010, the petitioner, who was then serving as block forest officer, demanded ₹3,000 from the complainant for the grant of tree-felling permission and for affixing the export hammer on timber. A trap was arranged by the vigilance department, and the accused was caught with the tainted notes.

During the trial, it was observed that demand and acceptance were not proven. Thus, the Trial Court acquitted the accused.

Thereafter, the state filed an appeal against the acquittal of the petitioner, who had been charged under Section 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The High Court observed that the witnesses did not support the prosecution's case and denied that vigilance officials conducted pre-trap and post-trap proceedings in their presence. Thus, the testimonies of these witnesses were of no help.

Mainly, the Court noted that there was nothing on record to prove that the petitioner demanded or accepted the bribe.

Thus, the Court upheld the acquittal and the petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount.

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Hari Saran

Case No: Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2014

Date of Decision: 12.09.2025

For the appellant: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Shalabh Thakur, Assistant Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order