Supreme Court acquits government employee who spent 4 years in jail in 16-year-old corruption case

Sixteen years after he was accused of demanding a ₹5,000 bribe, and long after he finished serving his four-year prison sentence, a former Jharkhand government employee was recently acquitted by the Supreme Court in a corruption case [Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand].

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar set aside the conviction of the appellant, one Ajit Kumar, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of any bribe.

Notably, when the top court first took up his plea on July 24, 2026, Kumar had already undergone the entire four-year rigorous imprisonment term and paid the ₹10,000 fine earlier imposed on him.

However, his counsel informed the Court that Kumar wished to fight the appeal to its logical conclusion to clear his name and remove the institutional stigma attached to a corruption conviction.

The case dates back to April 2010, when a school orderly alleged that Kumar - then working in the District Education Office at Saraikella - demanded money to release his pending salary.

He was booked in a corruption case. In February 2021, the Special Judge for the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Chaibasa convicted Kumar and imposed a four-year prison sentence as punishment. The Jharkhand High Court upheld the conviction in July 2022.

Following the High Court's dismissal of his appeal, Kumar served out his four-year term of rigorous imprisonment and paid the fine.

He subsequently approached the Supreme Court seeking to clear his name. On July 24, when the top court issued notice on his plea, his counsel clarified that despite having already undergone the entire sentence, Kumar wished to pursue the appeal to erase the stigma of conviction.

Scrutinising the trial record, the Supreme Court discovered critical gaps in the prosecution's case. The Court highlighted that not a single member of the trap team or any independent witness actually saw Kumar demand or accept the money, as the alleged transaction took place inside his residence without any observers present.

The Bench noted that the conviction rested entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, while official witnesses admitted they merely signed pre-drafted seizure lists at the behest of vigilance officers.

Reiterating settled law from landmark decisions like P Satyanarayana Murthy and Neeraj Dutta, the Court stressed that proof of demand of a bribe is the essential prerequisite (sine qua non) for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

"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... It is declared that the charge framed against the appellant Ajit Kumar under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act could not be proved. Ajit Kumar is thus cleared of the said charges," the Bench, therefore, held while allowing his appeal and setting aside both the trial court and High Court rulings.

Advocates Shambo Nandy and Daksh Sharma represented Kumar, while advocates Anando Mukherjee and Shwetank Singh appeared for the State of Jharkhand.

[Read Judgment]