Prevention Of Corruption Act | 'Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe Not Proved In Trap Case' : Supreme Court Acquits Govt Employees

The Supreme Court recently acquitted two government employees accused of demanding and accepting bribe after noting that the prosecution failed to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe. The Court reiterated that a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) would not arise against the accused unless the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe is established by the prosecution. Further, the Court stressed the importance of the independent witnesses' testimony in trap cases to ensure the credibility of the evidence i.e., if independent witnesses turn hostile or contradict the prosecution's case, it raises reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the prosecution claimed that the bribe money was recovered from the Appellants' pockets and that their hands and clothes tested positive for phenolphthalein (a chemical used in trap cases). However, the independent witnesses stated that the money was scattered on the floor.The Court found this discrepancy fatal to the prosecution's case. “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.”, the court observed. "On an examination of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion 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, is set aside.”, the court added. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, 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. Case Title: MADAN LAL VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHANCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 310Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hamad Tariq, Adv. Ms. Ms. Sankriti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv. Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vishal Thakre, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Anjale Kumari, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Tota Ram, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Garg, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Baranwal, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AORRelated - No Presumption Of Corruption Due To Misuse Of Authority If There's No Proof Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe: Supreme Court

Prevention Of Corruption Act | 'Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe Not Proved In Trap Case' : Supreme Court Acquits Govt Employees

Yash Mittal

Tags