Supreme Court allowed criminal appeals, acquitted two accused of corruption charges. Court held prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt due to glaring inconsistencies in evidence and lack of direct proof of transaction, rendering Section 20 presumption inapplicable.
Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted and bail bonds cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025 INSC 340
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______________OF 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No._________2025) (@ D. No.18552 of 2022)
MADAN LAL …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN …Respondent(s)
W I T H
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______________ OF 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6895 of 2022)
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
lodged, led to the prosecution and conviction of an
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.03.07 17:29:22 IST Reason:
Enforcement Inspector and Office Assistant in the
Page 1 of 14
Supply Department for demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881 . Both the accused were sentenced under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) with rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/ and a further sentence of R.I for six months under Section 7(2) of the Act, also with a fine of Rs. 1000/, with default sentences for failure to pay the fine.
1 “P.C. Act”
Page 2 of 14
inspection demanded bribe for speeding up the issuance of license. Following up with the demand, PW 5 reached the DSO at Sri Ganganagar on the very next day and met the Enforcement Officer as also the Office Assistant; Narendra Kumar, the 1st accused, when the latter demanded bribe for both the accused. PW 5 had paid the license fee of Rs. 1000/ and being distraught with the demand of bribe, approached the AntiCorruption Bureau2 who laid the trap on the very next day. The prosecution was built upon the demand alleged by PW 5 and the trap proceedings, which ensued the complaint to the ACB.
2 “ACB”
Page 3 of 14
the State, arguments were put forth by Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, the learned Government Counsel.
witnesses. PW 3, an Inspector of the ACB and PW 4, a Constable, comprised the trap team led by PW 8, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The accused examined two witnesses as DW 1 and 2.
statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 and Exhibit P1, the complaint filed before the ACB, supports the statements made in relation to the demand. Asfar as the receipt of the amount, reliance was placed on the official witnesses; while the independent witnesses PWs 1 and 2, though declared hostile, have spoken in tandem with the official witnesses as to the setting up of the trap,
3 “Cr.P.C.”
Page 4 of 14
who also confirmed their signatures on the mahazar drawn at the spot. The High Court also found the various contentions raised by the accused and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court, leading to the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed.
Page 5 of 14
ensuing, some currency notes were scattered on the floor which the police team who entered the room directed the accused to pick up. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on washing the hands and dress of the accused, with the test solution. There is no demand or acceptance as coming out from the evidence led.
Government Counsel asserts that the trap proceedings successfully caught the accused red handed. The demand was spoken of by the complainant and all the official witnesses spoke of the receipt of the money, which was further validated by the test solution turning pink on washing the hands of the accused and their dress. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act especially when the demand and acceptance of bribe is unequivocally
Page 6 of 14
proved. The concurrent findings of the Courts below do not warrant any interference.
Page 7 of 14
submitted that while the 2nd accused visited his shop, he demanded Rs. 200 to 400 for expenses. The 2nd accused also asked him to meet both the accused next day in the office; where the 1st accused is stated to have asked for money, the exact amount of which, the complainant deposed, he was not sure of. The complainant then submits that the matter was settled for Rs. 400/ and he had approached the ACB immediately thereafter.
Page 8 of 14
1st accused or the 2nd accused, contrary to his assertion made in the complaint. The discrepancies raise serious doubts as to the demand having been made.
Page 9 of 14
into the scene of crime only after the complainant signalled. He also, hence, was not a witness to the handing over of the money. According to him, the 2nd accused was sitting in a chair and currency notes of Rs. 100/ was lying on the side of the chair on which the 2nd accused was sitting and the 2nd accused feigned ignorance as to how the notes were placed there. According to PW2, it was the statement of the complainant that he had given Rs.400/ to the 1st accused. He, specifically, denied in the crossexamination by the Prosecutor, that any statement was made by the complainant, that after handing over of Rs. 400/ to the 1st accused, the 1st accused handed over Rs 200/ to the 2nd accused. PW 6 was an employee of the district supply office who also turned hostile. He spoke of the scuffle that ensued when the complainant tried to thrust the money into the pocket of the accused.
Page 10 of 14
trap team deposed that after the complainant gave the signal, the trap team moved into the office room wherein the complainant had stated that he had given the 1st accused Rs. 400/ and Rs. 200/ was handed over by the 1st accused to the 2nd accused; which currency notes were put by both accused in their pant pocket. PW 3 had specifically stated that when he went inside the office room, PW 4 Constable and an independent witness was inside the room. The name of the independent witness is not specified, but we have already seen that both the independent witnesses who accompanied the trap team turned hostile. According to PW 4 Constable, he had accompanied the complainant into the room and had witnessed the entire transaction. However, PW 1independent witness who was with the Constable has specifically stated
Page 11 of 14
in his deposition that both of them entered the room after the complainant gave the signal; which was after the money had passed hands. The complainant gave the signal only after the alleged handing over of money and receipt of the license.
Page 12 of 14
complainant to the 1st accused who handed over half, to the 2nd accused; which amounts were said to have been put by both the accused in their trouser pockets. 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.
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
Page 13 of 14
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 bail bonds, if any executed by the accused, in these cases, shall stand cancelled.
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.
……………………..……………, J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI; MARCH 7, 2025.
Page 14 of 14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether prosecution established demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in a trap-case.
Whether failure to prove physical transaction invokes presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether inconsistencies in complainant's statement and testimony of trap team warrant setting aside conviction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
MADAN LAL
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
SUDHANSHU DHULIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
