MP HC Refuses To Overturn 29-Year-Old Acquittal Of Patwari Accused Of Demanding Rs 325 Bribe For Land Document

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a nearly three-decade-old appeal by the State against the acquittal of a Patwari in a bribery case, holding that mere recovery of tainted currency notes cannot sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless the demand for illegal gratification is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar was hearing the State's appeal against a 1997 judgment of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Sagar, which had acquitted Patwari Munnalal of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case arose from a trap laid by the Lokayukt's Special Police Establishment on October 17, 1996, after complainant Veer Singh alleged that the accused had demanded money for issuing a duplicate Bhu-Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika. Currency notes worth Rs 300, smeared with phenolphthalein powder, were recovered from Munnalal's shirt pocket, and traces of the chemical were also found on his hands and pocket. These basic facts, the Court noted, were undisputed even before it.

The State, represented by advocates Abhinav Shrivastava and Aishwarya Kesarwani, argued that the trial court had erred in relying on "minor inconsistencies and omissions" in prosecution witnesses' testimony, and had wrongly discarded a transcript of a tape-recorded conversation allegedly corroborating the demand. Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the State contended that guilt could be inferred from circumstantial material even without direct evidence.

Appearing for the respondent, advocate Aditya S. Rajput submitted that the defence had been consistent from the outset, that Rs 325 was outstanding against the complainant as government dues (Takabi) towards a mud-boundary demarcation proceeding, and that the Tehsildar had instructed the accused to recover the arrears before issuing the document. The tainted notes, he argued, represented part-payment of these dues, not a bribe.

The Court found that complainant Veer Singh's own version was riddled with contradictions on the amount demanded, the occasions of demand, and the persons present. Crucially, witnesses he had cited, Kundau, Kotwar Manak and his own nephew Narayan either failed to corroborate his account or actively supported the defence's version that the money was sought towards government dues. The Court also noted that the tape recording central to the prosecution's case was never played before the trial court, its transcript was never verified by any witness, and no one identified the accused's voice on it, rendering it unreliable.

Revenue records, including the file of Revenue Case No. 94/79, showed that Rs 325 plus interest was indeed outstanding against Veer Singh, and that he cleared the arrears only in September 1997, well after the trap. The Court held this lent "reasonable probability" to the defence version.

"The recovery of money alone does not establish the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act," the Court observed, adding that in the absence of reliable proof that the amount was demanded and consciously accepted as "illegal gratification," the foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the Act remained unproved.

The Court held that the prosecution "had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded or accepted ₹300 as 'illegal gratification' for issuance of the duplicate Bhu-Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika."

Reiterating settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court observed that an accused enjoys a "double presumption" of innocence at the trial stage, and again on securing acquittal and interference is warranted only where there are "compelling and substantial reasons."

Finding the trial court's findings neither perverse nor based on a misreading of evidence, the Court held, "No compelling or substantial ground is made out to displace the reinforced presumption of innocence in favour of accused-respondent arising from the impugned judgement of acquittal."

The appeal was dismissed, and the 1997 acquittal affirmed nearly 29 years after it was passed.

Case Title: The State of M.P. v. Munnalal

Date of Judgment: September 19, 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar