Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 16) held that merely establishing that money changed hands between a complainant and an intermediary who invoked the name of a public servant cannot, by itself, prove that the public servant accepted a bribe.

“The prosecution has, at its best, established that money changed hands between a complainant and an intermediary who invoked the appellant's name. But that itself can be said to be a proof of appellant's acceptance of bribe.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while acquitting former Railway Protection Force officer Bharat Raj Meena in a corruption case after the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded or accepted illegal gratification through the intermediary [See Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029].

The case arose from a CBI trap in which RPF employee P.P. Nandakumar alleged that ₹10,000 was demanded to secure a posting. The prosecution alleged that accused-Meena demanded the money through Constable Anantha Narayanan, who was subsequently caught accepting the tainted currency.

Aggrieved by the Kerala High Court's judgment affirming the conviction rendered by the trial court under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused moved the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Kotiswar Singh held that a mere alleged acceptance of the tainted money by a third person for the accused could not automatically be treated as proof of the accused's acceptance of the bribe.

The Court noted that the prosecution had not established that the money received by the intermediary was ultimately intended to reach, or actually reached, the appellant.

“…a demand and an initial handover to an intermediary are not enough; the chain must be carried through, by cogent evidence, to the point where the money is shown to have actually reached or been intended for the accused failing which the conviction cannot stand.”, the Court said, relying on its 2015 judgment of R.P.S. Yadav v. CBI.

“Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, conviction of the appellant…cannot be sustained.”, the Court held.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal.

“We, therefore, hold that in view of the lingering reasonable doubts, as discussed above, the charge against the appellant could not be said to have been proved with certain element of definitiveness as contemplated under the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant in respect of the transaction concerning PW-11 N.P. Gopi Kumar cannot be sustained under Section 7 of the Act, and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted in this transaction as well.”, the Court held.

Cause Title: BHARAT RAJ MEENA VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 945

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Bhargava Ravikumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Alankar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.

Tags: