Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Excise Inspector In 35-Year-Old Bribery Case, Reduces Sentence Since Convict Now 75 Yr Old

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a former excise constable from Uttarakhand in a bribery trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while reducing the sentence in view of his advanced age and the time already spent in custody.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Bahadur Singh against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which had affirmed his conviction for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. However, the Court modified the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Background

The appellant, Raj Bahadur Singh, was serving as a constable in the Excise Department in Udham Singh Nagar district. The prosecution case arose from a complaint made by Kashmir Singh, who was allegedly involved in manufacturing contraband liquor.

According to the prosecution, during a raid conducted on June 16, 1990 in the complainant's village, the accused forced the complainant to sign certain documents and demanded Rs.500 as illegal gratification. The complainant was allegedly threatened that if the amount was not paid, a challan would be forwarded to the court.

The complainant approached the Vigilance Department on June 18, 1990. Acting on the complaint, a trap was organised at a restaurant in Khatima. The complainant was given five currency notes of Rs.100 each treated with phenolphthalein powder.

On June 19, 1990, the trap team recovered the tainted notes from the accused. When the accused's hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution, the liquid turned pink, confirming contact with phenolphthalein powder.

Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Conviction Upheld

The trial court in 2006 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the Act and two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2), along with fines. The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction in 2012.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the complainant had falsely implicated him due to personal animosity and to avoid action for his illegal liquor business. It was also argued that there were contradictions in witness testimonies and that the trap had been orchestrated by the complainant and police.

The Court rejected these contentions.

It noted that the conviction was based primarily on the consistent testimonies of the complainant (PW-1) and the independent shadow witness (PW-2), both of whom supported the prosecution version regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe.

The Court also rejected the argument that the shadow witness was an “interested witness”, observing that mere acquaintance with the complainant could not lead to such a conclusion in the absence of material showing hostility or bias.

Further, the Court found no merit in the defence argument that the trap was manipulated or that contradictions in evidence undermined the prosecution case.

Non-Production Of Currency Notes Not Fatal

The appellant also contended that the tainted currency notes were not produced before the court, which should vitiate the prosecution case.

The Supreme Court declined to entertain this argument, noting that the issue had not been raised before the trial court, the High Court, or even in the special leave petition.

The Court also noted that the recovery of the currency notes and the phenolphthalein test confirming their handling by the accused were duly recorded in the panchnama and supported by witness testimony.

The Court also upheld the High Court's rejection of the testimony of a defence witness, the restaurant owner where the trap was conducted, who denied that any raid had taken place there.

The High Court had reasoned that the witness, being a local resident and running a small restaurant in the same town as the accused, may have been reluctant to testify against a local government official.

The Supreme Court found no error in this reasoning.

While affirming the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence considering the long passage of time and the appellant's age.

The Court noted that the appellant was about 40 years old at the time of the offence in 1990 and is now around 75 years old. It also took note that he had already spent about two months and 24 days in custody after surrendering in 2012 before being granted bail.

Cause Title: RAJ BAHADUR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Gautam Yadav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv.