Public Servant Convicted For Bribery Cannot Seek Acquittal Merely Because Co-Accused Was Acquitted For Not Proving Conspiracy: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the public servant who personally demands and accepts a bribe can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, even if the charge of criminal conspiracy fails and the co-accused is acquitted. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the acquittal of an Income Tax Inspector, who was acquitted by the Rajasthan High Court just because the co-accused was acquitted and the charges of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC were dropped. The Court observed that even if the conspiracy allegation fails, the prosecution can still secure a conviction if the evidence independently establishes that the accused public servant demanded and accepted the bribe. The case dates back to 2010, when Pawan Aggarwal (PW1), a partner in a firm undergoing income tax assessment, complained to the CBI that Baljeet Singh (A2), an Inspector, had demanded Rs. 5 lakhs on behalf of his superior, Joint Commissioner Arun Kumar Gurjar (A1), to finalize the assessment without hurdles. The CBI laid a trap on December 29, 2010. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted with independent witnesses, and 200 notes of Rs. 1000/- each were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. When PW1 handed over the envelope to A2 in A1's office, A2 placed it in his coat pocket. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the trap team apprehended A2. The envelope was recovered from his pocket, and when his hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution, they turned pink, confirming contact with the powdered notes. The trial court convicted both A1 and A2 under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 PC Act, and separately under Section 7 PC Act, sentencing them to four years rigorous imprisonment. However, the Rajasthan High Court overturned the convictions, finding "no proof of conspiracy" and "no proof of demand." The CBI's appeal against A1's acquittal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in August 2025. The present appeal concerned A2 alone. Before the Supreme Court, the issue was whether the failure of the conspiracy charge under Section 120B of the IPC automatically leads to the collapse of the substantive corruption charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Setting aside the impugned judgment, the ruling authored by Justice Chandran held that the substantive offence of corruption stands distinct and independent from the charge of criminal conspiracy. Therefore, the acquittal of a co-accused or the failure of the conspiracy charge would not ipso facto result in the acquittal of the respondent-accused when the demand and acceptance of a bribe are otherwise proved against him. The Court noted that since the factum of demand and acceptance of the bribe was established against the Respondent, irrespective of conspiring with the co-accused, he cannot be acquitted of the substantive charges under the PC Act. “…if the charge under the PC Act linked with the charge of conspiracy was the only one levelled, then if one is acquitted the other cannot be convicted. But here there is another charge of demand and acceptance against both, which as against the two are not inextricably linked by a definite charge of conspiracy. The second charge can be proved against both or against one independently as there is no meeting of minds alleged.”, the court said. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, and the acquittal was set aside, but the sentence was modified from initial punishment of four years' incarceration to one year considering the health of the Respondent.HeadnotePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Criminal Conspiracy – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Individual Liability vs. Collective Culpability – The Supreme Court held that even if a charge of criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) fails due to lack of evidence regarding a prior meeting of minds or demand by one of the accused, the other accused can still be independently convicted for demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the PC Act if the evidence specifically establishes their individual role - The conduct of an accused person—such as turning pale, remaining "mum," or attempting to escape/dispose of the bribe money when challenged by the Trap Laying Officer—is admissible as relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.Criminal Procedure – Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – The testimony of "hostile" independent witnesses cannot be discarded in toto - Supreme Court must consider parts of the testimony that are creditworthy and corroborated by other evidence, such as the Trap Laying Officer's account and the recovery of marked currency. [Relied on Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731; Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 3 SCC 90; State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 500; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249; Paras 15-30]Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Baljeet...

Public Servant Convicted For Bribery Cannot Seek Acquittal Merely Because Co-Accused Was Acquitted For Not Proving Conspiracy: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Public Servant Convicted For Bribery Cannot Seek Acquittal Merely Because Co-Accused Was Acquitted For Not Proving Conspiracy: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers