Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused In ACB Trap Case, Says FIR Lodged After Investigation Began

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has acquitted two persons accused of bribery in a trap operation after finding that the investigating officer had conducted what the court described as a “table investigation”, holding that the FIR and crucial investigation records were prepared after the trap proceedings and not in accordance with law.[2026 LiveLaw (AP) 110]

The accused no. 1 was a Government servant and used to work as a Stockiest, while accused no. 2 was a private person. Accused no. 1 challenged conviction under Section 7(Offence relating to public servant being bribed), 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by public servant) Prevention of Corruption Act, while Accused No. 2 challenged conviction under Section 12 (Punishment for abetment of offences) of the PC act. 

The Court noted that Section 154 CrPC requires an FIR to be the first information that sets the criminal law in motion. Since the FIR appeared to have come into existence only after the trap proceedings, it could not be treated as a valid FIR, the Court held.

Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi allowed two criminal appeals filed by a government stockiest and a private individual, setting aside their 2008 convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in a case involving an alleged demand of Rs.5,000 as bribe for processing transport bills.

The Court observed:

“In the case on hand, as discussed above, the facts would establish that P.W-1 did not visit P.W-5 at 10-00 a.m. on 26.11.2002. P.W-1 visited P.W-5 in the evening of 26.11.2002. The evidence would also show that Ex.P-7 and EX.P-15 were signed by P.W-1 on 27.11.2002 at 04-30 p.m. after trap proceedings. Therefore, Ex.P-15 along with Ex.P-7 was received by the Special Court on 28.11.2002 at about 10.20 a.m. along with Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-12 proceedings. Therefore, Ex.P-15 was not in accordance with section 154 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P-7 was recorded subsequent to commencement of investigation. It will fall U/s.162 Cr.P.C. It cannot be treated as an FIR, though, P.W-5 tried to project it as an FIR registered at 10-00 a.m. on 26.11.2002. He transgressed and abused power of investigation, preparing proceedings at his office. What is generally known as table investigation. Therefore, undoubtedly FIR in the case is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. Investigation based on it, abridge the rights of the accused under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Hence, any conviction based on such proceedings is not sustainable in law. The trail Court lost sight of these aspects. It's finding was based on surmises which are not based on evidence. It ignored material evidence. Hence, it led to travesty of the justice.”

The prosecution alleged that the first accused, a stockiest in the Civil Supplies Department, had demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000 from a transport contractor for processing his transport bills, and that the money was allegedly received by the second accused at the stockiest's instance during an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) trap operation.

However, the High Court found serious contradictions in the prosecution evidence regarding the lodging of the complaint and registration of the FIR. The complainant's testimony regarding his visit to the ACB office did not align with the version given by the investigating officers, creating doubt as to whether the FIR had actually been registered before the trap.

Observing that the complaint, FIR and trap proceedings appeared to have been prepared together at the ACB office after the alleged trap, the Court held that the investigating officer had effectively conducted a "table investigation" by preparing the records subsequently and projecting them as contemporaneous documents.

Apart from the defects in the investigation, the Court also accepted the defence case that the money allegedly recovered was related to vehicle hire charges. Evidence on record showed that the complainant owned only one lorry and regularly hired other vehicles to transport essential commodities. Defence witnesses, including lorry owners and a Civil Supplies employee, supported the contention that the amount paid to the second accused related to transportation expenses.

The Court found that the trial court had ignored material evidence and had rejected the defence case on untenable grounds.

Holding that the investigation had resulted in a “travesty of justice”, the High Court set aside the convictions of both accused and ordered refund of the fine amounts, if already paid.

Case Title: Y. Ramachandrappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh and connected appeal

Case Nos.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 123 and 124 of 2008

Counsel for the Appellant: A Hariprasad Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent: S.Syam Sunder Rao Standing Counsel cum Spl P.P. For ACB

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 110