According to the case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had convicted a person on the ground that ₹ 300 was recovered from him for allegedly taking a bribe. The appellant challenged the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Supreme Court, which was heard by a division bench of Justice Abhay Singh Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal. The bench observed that during the trial court, the prosecution had failed to prove That a bribe was demanded by the accused.The decision of the High Court is based on the presumption that if money has been recovered from the appellant, he must have demanded a bribe.It was the contention of the prosecution that in the presence of independent witnesses currency notes impregnated with a liquid called phenolphthalein having identical serial numbers were recovered from the appellant.From which it can be concluded that the appellant demanded bribe. The bench said that no evidence was given by the prosecution that the appealant had demanded the bribe.The court observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is to be examined in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. Government of Delhi then the appellant is not proved guilty, he cannot be punished. In the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State of Delhi, the Constitution Bench laid down that In order to convict the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand for bribe and the receipt of the demanded bribe amount from him must be proved. The bench acquitted the appellant citing a decision of the Constitutional Bench in this twenty years old case,.
