Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 11, 12, 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Demand-andtrap proceedings – Evidentiary standard to prove – PW1complainant submitted the insurance claim and requested the appellant-accused no.1 (Administrative Officer in the Insurance Company) for early disposal of the claim – As per the prosecution, the appellant demanded bribe for himself and accused no.2-Regional Manager for settlement of the claim – Complaint made – Trap set up – Cash, whisky bottle and the shirt of accused no.3 (appellant’s brother) were seized – To prove criminal conspiracy between the appellant and accused no.2, the prosecution relied on the call made between them – Trial Court acquitted the accused persons – High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant and accused no.3 (accused no.2 passed away during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court) – Interference with:
Held: 1.1 Prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand of and acceptance of the bribe in the trap laid by PW12 (Inspector, CBI) – Present is a case of a fabrication, attempted frame-up and botched-up trap with serious lapses committed by the investigative agency – There are glaring contradictions in the prosecution evidence which cumulatively shake the foundations of the prosecution case. [Paras 31, 38]
1.2 High Court itself relied on inferences and conjectures alone – Even if the factum of phone call, as alleged, having been made stands accepted, the contents of the conversation are not available at all – Also, the protection of Art.20(3) of the Constitution would apply and the appellant could not be compelled to disclose the nature and content of the conversation, assuming it happened – Further, mere fact that accused no.3 is the appellant’s brother would not lead to a presumption in law that the money taken by him was meant for the appellant and that too, pursuant to demand being made by the appellant. [Para 28, 37]
1.3 Moreover, on facts, the allegation of demand of bribe, as projected by the prosecution, is shrouded in a cloud of dubiety – Mere fact that accused no.3 is the appellant’s brother would not lead to a presumption in law that the money taken by him was meant for the appellant and that too, pursuant to demand being made by the appellant – Further, except for PW1, no other witness/person was privy to the demand made to the complainant by the appellant – This does not satisfy the requirement that in trap cases where after a complaint is received, independent witnesses of the trap team are also required to confirm the demand made by the accused personally, which has not been done in the present case – Thus, the procedure of the trap case itself from the very inceptual stage suffers from serious legal lacuna, which cannot be now overcome – For, the purpose of this requirement is that before the trap is set into motion, there should be corroboration of the allegation made by the complainant of actual and real demand being made by the accused-public servant as a quid pro quo for extending a favour to the complainant – On to the next stage of actual laying of trap, there also the appellant was nowhere in the picture – The prosecution’s effort of still trying to bring him under the ambit and scope of the corruption net clearly has not succeeded in the circumstances. [Paras 29, 31, 37]
1.4 Furthermore, in a case where the accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court, there is a double presumption of innocence which accrues in their favour – Hence, it was all the more important for the High Court to have provided cogent reasoning for disturbing the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. [Paras 34, 35]
1.5 Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Impugned Judgment set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 38, 39]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.