The Supreme Court on October 5, allowed an appeal filed by Ajit Kumar and set aside his conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. 298112026_2026-10-05
Background
The case arose from a complaint by Durgapad Singh Munda, who had been appointed as an orderly at a Government High School in Sirum but had not received his salary. Kumar, then working as an Assistant in the District Education Office at Saraikella, was alleged to have demanded Rs. 5,000 for facilitating release of the salary. The complainant approached the Vigilance Bureau, following which a trap operation was conducted on May 20, 2010. 298112026_2026-10-05
According to the prosecution, the complainant handed over chemically treated currency notes to Kumar at his residence. The vigilance team later recovered Rs. 5,000 from the residence, and the solution used to test Kumar's hands turned pink. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment and fine. The Jharkhand High Court subsequently upheld the conviction in July 2022. 298112026_2026-10-05 298112026_2026-10-05
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar closely examined the testimony of the complainant and vigilance witnesses. The Court noted that none of the witnesses had actually seen Kumar demanding the alleged bribe or the complainant handing the money to him. The Court also noticed differing accounts regarding where Kumar was apprehended and how the money was recovered. 298112026_2026-10-05
The Court relied on earlier decisions, including P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Aman Bhatia v. State. It reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for establishing guilt under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 298112026_2026-10-05 298112026_2026-10-05
The Court observed:
"In so far the present case is concerned, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused as a fact in issue could not be proved by the prosecution." 298112026_2026-10-05
It further held that mere recovery of tainted currency, without proof of the alleged demand, could not by itself sustain the conviction. 298112026_2026-10-05
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had not proved the charges against Kumar, much less beyond reasonable doubt. It therefore set aside the 2021 judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, as well as the Jharkhand High Court's 2022 judgment affirming the conviction.
The Court declared that the charges under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be proved and cleared Ajit Kumar of those charges.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4573 of 2026
Judges: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: October 5, 2026
