Jageshwar Prasad Awasthi

Jageshwar Prasad Awasthi (born ) is an Indian former transport corporation employee best known for being at the center of one of the country's longest-running bribery trials. Accused in 1986 of demanding a ₹100 (approx. $1.3) bribe while working as a billing assistant, he spent nearly four decades in legal proceedings before the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted him in 2025.

Biography Awasthi was born in 1942 in Govindarajnagar, a locality in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. He is married with four children.

Legal proceeding The case relates to an incident purportedly dating back to 1986, in which Awasthi was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹100 from an employee, Ashok Kumar Verma, purportedly to clear arrears.

A trap operation was reportedly arranged by the then Lokayukta, using currency notes coated with phenolphthalein (a chemical marker used to detect handling). Awasthi was alleged to have been caught in possession of the marked notes. In 2004, a lower court convicted him, sentencing him to one year in prison, finding evidence of his demand of the bribe.

After years of appeals and legal delays, the Chhattisgarh High Court, in a judgment delivered in September 2025, fully acquitted Awasthi. The court's ruling underscored that the mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient to establish guilt without clear proof of intent, demand, or acceptance.

According to the high court, there was no independent witness who could testify to the demand or acceptance of the money. A "shadow witness" admitted to neither hearing the conversation nor seeing the transaction.

Government witnesses present during the trap were positioned some distance away (20–25 yards), which, the court observed, made it improbable that they could reliably observe the transaction.

Awasthi's defense contended that at the time of the alleged incident, he had not been authorized to pass bills; that authority had been granted later.

After the court observed deficiencies, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof, declaring that the trap operation had failed and overturning the conviction.