Demand as Sine Qua Non in PC Act Traps: Recovery and Uncertified/Unverified Voice Recordings Cannot Sustain Conviction

1. Introduction

Case: Anil Markende v. State Of Chhattisgarh (2026 CGHC 25610), decided on 23-06-2026 by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Parties: The appellants were (i) Anil Markende (public servant; Block Education Officer/Assistant Director, Education) and (ii) Ramesh Kumar Chouhan (clerk). The respondent was the State of Chhattisgarh through ACB.

Backdrop: The complainant (PW-03) alleged that his wife (PW-02), a Shikshakarmi Grade-III, had salary withheld for six months, and that appellant No. 2 demanded Rs. 5,000 allegedly on behalf of appellant No. 1 to facilitate release. A trap was laid on 12-10-2010; tainted money was recovered from appellant No. 1, and phenolphthalein test turned positive.

Core issues before the High Court: (i) whether the prosecution proved demand of illegal gratification (the sine qua non under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act), (ii) whether the alleged electronic/voice recording could be relied upon without safeguards (chain of custody, voice identification/expert opinion, and Section 65-B compliance), and (iii) whether mere recovery and positive handwash could sustain conviction in the absence of proved demand.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated 08-09-2017, and acquitted both appellants of offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt and that the alleged voice recording was unreliable due to (a) custody remaining with the complainant for days (tampering possibility), (b) absence of voice samples/expert comparison, (c) unclear audio and multiple voices, and (d) absence of a Section 65-B certificate. The Court also noted that proceedings were effectively directed against appellant No. 1, while appellant No. 2’s role (presence/acceptance) was not established and no recovery was made from him.

Post-acquittal, applying section 481 of BNSS 2023, the Court directed appellants to furnish personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each for six months to secure appearance in the event of an SLP.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited (and How They Shaped the Outcome)

(A) Demand is foundational; recovery alone is insufficient

  • State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere [State By Lokayuktha Police] v. C B Nagaraj (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175): The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s reiteration that for conviction under the PC Act, the chain must be complete—demand, acceptance, recovery. If demand is suspicious/not proved, even proved recovery cannot complete the chain. The High Court used this to test whether the prosecution story made sense when PW-02/PW-03 admitted the cheque was received on 05-10-2010, prior to the trap.
  • ARUN KUMAR VISHWAKARMA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (CRA No. 89 of 2008): This Court’s own precedent, drawing from B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh ((2014) 13 SCC 55) and Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi ((2016) 3 SCC 108), underscores that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non and that mere recovery/possession without proven demand cannot sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13.

(B) Trap integrity and independent witnessing of demand/acceptance

  • P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291): The High Court used the Supreme Court’s reasoning that investigative omissions—especially when independent witnesses are kept away from the critical moment—can “strike at the root” of the prosecution version on demand/acceptance. In the present case, the Court found analogous weakness: no independent proof of demand, panch testimony limitations, and a recording that was not properly proved.

(C) Electronic/voice recording: admissibility depends on identification, integrity, and anti-tampering safeguards

  • ROMESH SHARMA v. THE STATE (CrL. Rev.P. 646/2004, decided 29.01.2026): Quoted for the admissibility framework rooted in Ram Singh v. Col Ram Singh (1986 AIR (SC) 3): voice identification, accuracy, ruling out tampering, sealed custody, audibility, relevance. The High Court applied these principles to hold that when the device remained with the complainant from 05-10-2010 to 10-10-2010, when audio was unclear with multiple voices, and when no expert comparison/voice sample was taken, reliance on the recording was unsafe.

(D) Other cited authorities

3.2 Legal Reasoning

  1. Demand not proved beyond reasonable doubt: The Court treated demand as the central element. It found the complainant’s version “highly suspicious” and materially inconsistent with surrounding facts, including admissions that the cheque was received on 05.10.2010 without bribe payment, raising doubt about the necessity/logic of later payment.
  2. Unreliable electronic evidence: The alleged demand was sought to be bolstered by voice recordings and transcripts (Ex. P/06), but: (i) the device remained with PW-03 for several days (tampering possibility not ruled out), (ii) no voice samples of accused/complainant were obtained, (iii) witnesses admitted the conversation was not clear and contained multiple voices, (iv) the prosecution did not produce a Section 65-B certificate. Collectively, these defects undermined the recording as proof of demand.
  3. Recovery/phenolphthalein test not enough: While recovery from appellant No. 1 and positive wash were proved, the Court followed settled doctrine (as reflected through the cited precedents) that recovery cannot substitute demand. The prosecution’s failure on demand prevented the statutory presumptions from “filling the gap”.
  4. Case against appellant No. 2 not established: The Court noted that the trap proceedings were conducted “qua accused Anil Markande”; appellant No. 2’s presence/role in acceptance was not established and no recovery was effected from him—an additional reason the conviction could not stand.

3.3 Impact

  • Higher evidentiary discipline in trap cases: Investigators and prosecutors must ensure the “demand-acceptance-recovery” chain is provable through credible, preferably independent, evidence; courts will not treat recovery and positive handwash as determinative.
  • Electronic evidence compliance becomes case-critical: The judgment reinforces that voice recordings used to prove demand must be supported by integrity safeguards—sealed custody, audibility, proper identification (often by expert comparison), and Section 65-B compliance.
  • Liability of intermediaries/secondary accused: Where the alleged demand is through a clerk/intermediary, the prosecution must prove that role with clarity (presence, participation, linkage), not merely by assertion.
  • Procedural post-acquittal bonds under BNSS: By invoking section 481 of BNSS 2023, the judgment signals routine continuation of the (earlier Section 437A CrPC-like) practice of securing the accused’s presence for possible appellate proceedings, even after acquittal.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Demand is sine qua non”
“Sine qua non” means an indispensable condition. Under PC Act trap jurisprudence, the prosecution must first prove that the public servant asked for a bribe; recovery alone usually cannot prove this.
Phenolphthalein handwash test
A chemical test indicating contact with tainted notes. It supports contact/handling but does not, by itself, prove the money was demanded/accepted as a bribe.
Section 65-B certificate (Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
A mandatory certification (in typical scenarios) to admit electronic records (like CDs/digital recordings) by establishing how the record was produced, device particulars, and reliability. Absence may render the electronic record inadmissible/unsafe.
Chain of custody / anti-tampering requirement
Courts require proof that the recording/device was securely handled so that editing or manipulation is ruled out. If the device remains with an interested party for days without sealing, courts may treat the recording as unreliable.

5. Conclusion

Anil Markende v. State Of Chhattisgarh is a reaffirmation—applied to the facts with particular rigor—that in PC Act trap cases, proved demand is the keystone and cannot be replaced by recovery and chemical tests. The Court also delivers an operational message on modern proof: where the prosecution relies on voice recordings to prove demand, it must satisfy basic safeguards—Section 65-B compliance, secure custody, clear audibility, and reliable voice identification. Failing these, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, even if money is recovered.