Supreme Court judgmentrelates tothe criminalappealsagainst their conviction for demanding and accepting bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case originated from a complaint by an individual seeking a license, leading to a trap operation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Despite initial convictions by the Trial and High Courts, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, citing glaring inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony regarding the bribe amount and contradictory statements from independent witnesses about the money’s handling. The Court ultimately found that the prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7(2), 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2), 20 – Corruption – Presumption – Bribery case – Glaring inconsistencies insofar as the amount of money demanded – Further, in cross-examination, PW 5 again admitted that he does not remember the exact amount demanded by the 2nd accused – Hence, in the deposition before Court, the complainant was not able to speak of the exact amount demanded by the 1st accused or the 2nd accused, contrary to his assertion made in the complaint.
The discrepancies raise serious doubts as to the demand having been made – There is considerable doubt raised, which qualifies as reasonable doubt, as to whether there was acceptance of bribe amounts by both the accused – True, the officers of the trap team spoke about the handing over of the money by the complainant to the 1st accused who handed over half, to the 2nd accused; which amounts were said to have been put by both the accused in their trouser pockets – PW 8 who led the trap team merely spoke of a recovery of the bribe amounts from the possession of the accused and the hands and trousers of the accused having positively reacted to the test solution- The said deposition is contrary to the statements made by the independent witnesses that some notes were found thrown on the floor – None of the officers spoke of any of the accused having taken out the notes and thrown it on the floor.
Held that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team of the ACB – In that circumstance there is no question of a presumption under Section 20 arising in this case – The conviction and sentence of the accused as brought out by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, hence liable to be set aside , acquitting the accused for reason of the prosecution having not established and proved the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
(Para 11, 15 to 17)
Madan Lal V. State Of Rajasthan
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 340: (DoJ 07-03-2025)
