Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 221
Criminal Appeal No…….………of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12486 of 2025]
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Appellant
Versus
Baljeet Singh
...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Leave granted.
2. Bereft of proof of the conspiracy theory and finding
absence of the demand of bribe, the conviction of both the
accused was overturned by the High Court. The Central
Bureau of Investigation (the ‘CBI’) which laid the trap at the
instance of the complaint made by PW1, is in appeal.
3. We heard Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindar Kumar,
learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Moraria, learned counsel for the appellant-CBI and Mr.
Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-
accused.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.03.11
09:57:48 IST
Reason:
4. PW1, the complainant, was the partner of a firm whose
st
Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act was the 1
Page 1 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
st
appellant/1 accused; A1. There was a notice issued to the
assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 as pending in the
nd
office of A1, to finalize which PW1 had approached the 2
nd
appellant/2 accused; A2, an Income Tax Inspector, who
was the subordinate of A1. It was the complaint of PW1 that
in October 2010, he had met both the appellants concerned
in connection with the scrutiny of the accounts of the firm in
which he was a partner, pursuant to which he was directed
to furnish information which also was submitted. On
27.12.2010, PW1 had gone to the Income Tax Office where
he met A2 who took him to A1. After discussions, when PW1
was coming out with A2, the latter made a demand of Rs.5
lakhs purportedly on behalf of A1. PW1 protested and the
second appellant having persisted, he haggled for a lesser
amount pointing out that in October 2010 the demand was
for a far lesser amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The second
appellant refused to budge, and this prompted PW1 to
approach the CBI with the complaint.
5. The complaint was verified by PW22, referred to as a
Trap Laying Officer (TLO). The TLO called for two
independent witnesses from the House Taxes Department of
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, PW10 and PW18. In the
Page 2 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
presence of the independent witnesses there was a
telephonic conversation between PW1 and A2, which was
recorded in a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) and transferred
to a CD. PW1 is alleged to have informed A2 that he had in
his possession only Rs.2 lakhs upon which A2 had directed
PW1 to come to his office in the Drum Shaped Building, IP
Estate, New Delhi. The pre-trap proceedings were carried
out in the presence of the independent witnesses wherein
200 notes of Rs.1000/- each, smeared with phenolphthalein
powder, after noting down their serial numbers, were kept
in an envelope which also was smeared with the powder.
The entire proceedings were recorded and reduced to
writing in the Handing Over Memo (HOM) signed by the
complainant, the TLO and the independent witnesses. PW1
was given a DVR to record the conversation likely to take
place between PW1 and A2.
6. The team reached the Income Tax Office upon which
PW1 followed by the TLO and the other members of the
team entered the building. PW1, on reaching the office of
A2 was informed that he is in A1’s room. PW1 then went to
the office room of A1, where he found only A2, to whom he
handed over the envelope, which A2 put in his coat pocket.
Page 3 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
PW1 walked out of the room followed by A2 and as
prearranged, touched his shoe to signal the TLO. The TLO
gave signal to the team and confronted A2 and took him
back into the room. The independent witnesses too
marched into the room, PW18 with the TLO, and PW10, a
little later with the other members of the team. The TLO and
another constable caught hold of the hands of A2 and one of
the independent witnesses, PW18 was asked to search A2.
As pointed out by PW1, the envelope was recovered from
the coat pocket of A2 by PW18 and handed over to the TLO.
The notes were taken out from the envelope recovered from
the coat pocket of A2 and both the hands of A2 being
submerged in two separate tumblers of Sodium Carbonate
solution, they turned pink revealing the taint of acceptance
of the powdered envelope with the marked notes.
7. The TLO asked for A1 who was said to be in the
Commissioner’s office. The TLO proceeded to the
Commissioner’s office and after making a request to the
Commissioner escorted A1 back to his room where the trap
team had detained A1. The statements were taken from both
A1 & A2 and the arrest recorded. After investigation charge
was framed of conspiracy under Section 120B and the
Page 4 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (for brevity, ‘the PC Act’).
8. The prosecution examined twenty-three witnesses
and produced relevant documents as also transcript of the
conversation between PW1 and A2 over telephone and in
person, recorded in the DVR. The defense examined three
witnesses, two of whom were Officers of the Income Tax
Department and DW2, a Junior Judicial Assistant at the
record room of the Sessions Court at Patiala House Courts.
The Trial Court listed out fifteen circumstances found
established and held the charge raised against both the
accused to have been proved. Convicting the accused
under Section 120B of the IPC r/w Section 7 of the PC Act
and separately under Section 7 of the PC Act, sentence was
imposed, of 4 years rigorous imprisonment on each count
and fine of Rs.1 lakh again on each count, for both, with
default sentences of simple imprisonment for 4 months
each.
9. The High Court, by the impugned decision, found that
there was no conspiracy proved and that there was no proof
of a demand having been made by A2 and A1. Disbelieving
the conspiracy angle, the trite principle that it is always
Page 5 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
difficult to establish the same since invariably it is
conceived and executed in privacy was noticed. Looking at
the evidence proffered it was found that merely for the
reason that A1 was the Assessing Officer and A2 was
assisting him, that by itself was not sufficient to establish a
prior meeting of minds between A1 and A2, in furtherance
of the commission of crime. Immediately we observe that,
having gone through the evidence led and the findings of
both the Trial Court and the High Court, we are inclined to
accept the said finding of the High Court, more particularly
for reason of there being absolutely no evidence of A1
having ever demanded a bribe from PW1, nor even the
demand made by A2 said to be in the presence of A1. We
may note that, while issuing notice in this case on
18.08.2025, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.12485 of 2025 filed by the CBI against the acquittal
of A1/Arun Kumar Gurjar.
10.
Insofar as the absence of proof of demand, the finding
of the High Court was that PW1 failed to disclose at the first
instance, about the initial demand of Rs.1,50,000/- in
October 2010, in the early part of his chief examination. This
was the first charge alleged under Section 120B of the IPC.
Page 6 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
Even in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, there was no mention
about the initial demand of Rs.1,50,000/- alleged to have
been made in October 2010. A casual statement was also
made regarding other contradictions and improvements in
the testimony of PW1 to hold that the demand was absent. It
was also observed that the transcription of the conversation
between PW1 and A2 over the telephone, in the presence of
the TLO and the independent witnesses only disclosed the
offer made by PW1 of Rs.2 lakhs, which was accepted by A2.
It was hence found that even on the crucial date i.e.
29.12.2010, there was no demand made of either Rs.5 lakhs
or 2 lakhs from the complainant. Having gone through the
testimonies, specifically of PW1, PW10, PW18 and PW 22,
we are unable to agree with the High Court, reasons for
which we would presently elaborate.
11. Before we look at the evidence, we should first notice
the compelling argument made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent that if the conspiracy element is
found to be absent then there is no cause to further examine
the records since the charge itself has to fail. Specific
reference is made to the charge-sheet produced as
Annexure R2 with the counter affidavit dated 27.10.2025
Page 7 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
filed by A2. We cannot but notice that there are two charges
raised, one under Section 120B of IPC r/w Section 7 of the
PC Act and the other under Section 7 of the PC Act; but
without the conspiracy angle, independently as against the
two accused. For completeness we extract the charges as
hereunder
“Firstly, that during the period of October, 2010 to
December, 2010, you Arun Kumar Gurjar, Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-29, New Delhi
and Baljeet Singh, Inspector, Income Tax , Range-
29 , New Delhi/IAP-V, CIT (Audit) 1, C.R Building,
New Delhi while posted and functioning as such
public servants entered into criminal conspiracy
and in pursuance thereof by abusing your official
position as public servants while scrutinizing the
income tax assessment of 2008-2009 of M/S Madhya
Pradesh Vanijaya Company you both demanded
illegal gratification of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- in the month
of October, 2010 from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal, the
partner of said company for scrutiny and finalizing
the income tax assessment without any hurdle and
when Sh. Pawan Aggarwal refused to pay the bribe
amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs, a notice dated 20.12.2010
was issued to the company by you Arun Kumar
Gurjar, and subsequently when Sh. Pawan
Aggarwal visited the office on 27.12.2010 you both
Sh. Arun Kumar Gurjar and Sh. Baljeet Singh again
demanded bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs fromSh. Pawan
Aggarwal for finalization of entire matter without
any hurdle and that illegal gratification of Rs.2 lakhs
was accepted by you accused Baljeet Singh on
29.12.2010 from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal on behalf of
yourself and accused Arun Kumar Gurjar which was
recovered from his possession by CBI team and thus
you both have committed an offence punishable u/s
120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 7 of
Page 8 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my
cognizance.
Secondly, you both while posted and
functioning as such public servants at aforesaid
place, period and dates in your capacity as public
servants by abusing your position as such public
servants demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5
lakhs from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal, the partner of M/S
Madhya Pradesh Vanijaya Company in lieu of
finalizing the scrutiny of assessment case of above-
noted firm without any hurdle and in furtherance of
said criminal conspiracy that on 29.12.2010 you Sh.
Baljeet Singh was caught red-handed by CBI team
while demanding and accepting Rs.2,00,000/-
(which was recovered by CBI team from possession
of Baljeet Singh) as part amount of said demanded
amount from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal for himself and on
behalf of Sh. Arun Kumar Gurjar in his office as
illegal gratification other than legal remuneration
as motive or reward for finalizing the scrutiny of
assessment case of the firm of Sh. Pawn Aggarwal
and subsequently you Arun Kumar Gurjar was also
arrested and thus you both have committed an
offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.”
12. We are unable to accept the contention put forth by
the respondent, for which reliance was placed on the
decisions in A. Srinivasulu v. State represented by the
1
Inspector of Police , Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. Central
2
Bureau of Investigation and Bhagat Ram v. State of
3
Rajasthan .
1
(2023) 13 SCC 705
2
(2019) 17 SCC 509
3
(1972) 2 SCC 466
Page 9 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
3
13. Bhagat Ram was a Police Inspector who was alleged
to have conspired with one Ram Swarup in an attempt to
extort an amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW1. The Trial Court
acquitted both the accused and in an appeal against
acquittal, the learned Judges of the High Court found the
charge under Section 120B of the IPC to be not proved.
However, there was a dispute on whether Bhagat Ram alone
can be convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and Section
5(1)(a) of the PC Act. A third judge found the conspiracy
angle to be proved, but due to the unanimous opinion
restrained himself from imposing any conviction under that
provision but still convicted Bhagat Ram under Section 161
IPC and also under Sections 347 and 389 of the IPC. This
Court found that the third judge could not have reopened
the entire case, since the issue before him was only limited
to the offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(a) of
the PC Act. It was also categorically found that the offence
under Section 161 IPC would not survive against one of the
accused since the specific case of the prosecution was that
Bhagat Ram made a demand of bribe through Ram Swarup
and there was no demand by Bhagat Ram directly to PW1.
This disabled the Court from convicting one of the accused,
Page 10 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
as having accepted the bribe while the person who made
the demand was exonerated. The facts in the present case
are quite distinct insofar as the prosecution having alleged
the demand and acceptance by A2, while there was also an
allegation of the bribe having been demanded for A1, who
was the Assessing Officer, whose culpability was not
established.
2
14. In Dashrath Singh , one of the accused had demanded
the bribe, even as per the complaint and when it was sought
to be handed over, he directed the money to be handed
over to the other accused, who accepted it. Hence, the
charge of demand was not available against one accused,
and the charge of acceptance was absent insofar as the
1
other accused. A. Srinivasulu also dealt with a criminal
conspiracy entered into by A1 to A7 to cause wrongful loss
to a public sector undertaking, in which A1 to A4 were
employees, so as to confer a wrongful gain on A5 to A7. It
was held that once the offence under Section 120B was not
made out against A5 to A7, the very foundation of the
prosecution becomes shaky. We are afraid the dictum in
those cases applies squarely to the facts of those cases only
and does not apply to the facts of this case.
Page 11 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
15. As we observed, in addition to the charge under
Section 120B, both the accused were separately alleged to
have demanded money and accepted it, which demand and
acceptance even as per the statement of PW1 is not
available against A1 but very much present against A2. That
A2 informed PW1 that the bribe was for A1 is of no
consequence insofar as A1’s culpability is concerned. Since
A2 was also an officer of the Department, which was
carrying on the assessment, actively participating in the
assessment proceedings as spoken of by PW1, A2 was in a
position of some authority to influence the assessment
proceedings, as far as PW1 was concerned and that was the
purpose for which the demand of bribe was made. True, 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.
Page 12 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
16. It was argued on behalf of the accused that there was
no demand proved and even the trial court noticed the
inconsistent stand regarding the demand in the complaint
and the testimony, especially regarding the demand made
in October 2010 and the amounts also did not tally. The pre-
trap demand alleged through telephone was not
established since the trial Court refused to give any
credence to the voice recording for reason of the
certification with respect to the electronic data under
Section 65B of the Evidence Act not being produced. The
voice recording at the time of trap also failed on the same
count. The charge of conspiracy being that related to the
demand in October the prosecution has to fail and there was
also no proof offered of the other demands alleged, is the
compelling argument.
17. The complainant was examined as PW1, who clearly
spoke of a demand of Rs.5 lakhs having been made by A2
on 27.12.2010 when they were coming out of the room of A1
after discussions took place with respect to the assessment.
True, with respect to the demand made in October 2010,
PW1 had different versions. In the original complaint, it was
stated that Rs.5 lakhs was demanded in October 2010 and
Page 13 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
reiterated in December 2010, when PW1 had visited the
Income Tax Office. In his deposition before Court, his
version was that earlier the demand was of Rs.1.5 lakhs and
later Rs.5 lakhs. This does not in any way totally efface the
demand having been made in December 2010 which tallies
with the statement in the complaint and the statement under
Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However,
though PW1 spoke that the bribe was demanded for both A1
and A2, there is no evidence that A1 ever demanded a bribe
or even that A2 made the demand in the presence of A1. It
is on such demand by A2 that PW1 approached the CBI,
which agency had authorized PW22 as the TLO, to carry out
the trap. The demand in October 2010 though not proved,
the demand made by A2 on 27.12.2010 was testified to by
PW1 and is corroborated by PW22 who vouches the
complaint filed before the CBI.
18. PW22 also spoke of the two independent witnesses,
PW10 and PW18 having been summoned to his office. Both
PW10 and PW18 confirmed the presence of PW1 in the office
of the CBI and corroborated fully the pre-trap proceedings.
That PW1 talked over the telephone to a person who asked
him to come to the Income Tax Office is also confirmed by
Page 14 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
PW10 and PW18, but without identifying the voice on the
other side. The pre-trap proceedings with respect to the
notes being powdered and kept in an envelope, which was
also powdered and handed over to PW1 was spoken of by
the independent witnesses. PW10 and PW18 spoke also of
the numbers of the notes having been recorded by the TLO
in the Hand Over Memo (HOM); Ex. PW1/E, which was
produced before Court along with the notes, PW1/F10 and
the envelope; PW1/E-9, signed by the complainant, the TLO
and the independent witnesses; proved by the testimonies
of the witnesses. The number of the notes produced tallied
with the HOM as verified by the trial court and the HOM was
specifically identified by both the witnesses, PW10 & PW18
who also identified the pre-trap verification memo PW1/E
recovery memo PW1/G, and the arrest memos of A1 & A2
PW10/A & PW10/B respectively.
19. A1 was the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax who was
the Assessing Officer of the firm in which PW1 was a partner,
and A2 was an Inspector in the same department is beyond
any cavil. There was a suggestion raised by A2 in the cross
examination of PW1 that he harbored enmity since he had
Page 15 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
conducted a scrutiny in a related firm carried on in the very
same premises in which was housed the firm of PW1. The
related firm had to shell out a huge penalty for the
discrepancies revealed on scrutiny. It was also the
suggestion of A2 that since A1 was the Assessing Officer of
PW1’s firm, there was no reason for A2 to demand or accept
any bribe from PW1 since he was not the authority entrusted
with the assessment of PW1.
20. PW1 readily accepted the scrutiny of the related firm
by a team led by A2 and also the penalty imposed on such
firm. There is nothing indicated other than this to establish
that the trap was laid merely on the enmity especially since,
as we would presently see, the acceptance of the bribe and
the recovery of the envelope with the marked cash was
made from the body of A2. PW1’s evidence was categoric
insofar as, after issuance of notice to his firm, he had
contacted A2 and A2 had been present when the issues
arising on the assessment were discussed with A1, the
Assessing Officer. The fact that A2 was an Inspector who had
conducted a survey operation with respect to a related firm,
who was also present during the hearing with respect to the
assessment proceedings before A1, clearly indicates that
Page 16 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
A2 was a person in a position of influence, which would also
validate PW1’s subservience insofar as understanding the
demand of bribe being made by a person of some authority.
21. It was further brought out in evidence through PW7,
another Inspector that A2 was transferred in
October/November 2010 and PW14, an Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax deposed that there was a
request made to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to
retain A2 in the present place. Undisputedly, A2 was
present in the Drum Shaped Building, on 27.12.2010, when
the demand was made and on 29.12.2010, when he was
trapped with the bribe, the marked notes in an envelope,
recovered from his person. One defense taken by the
accused before the Trial Court was that the assessment of
PW1’s firm had to be completed by 31.12.2010 and the
entire trap was stage-managed to ensure that the
assessment is time barred. As a corollary, it should also be
observed that the hearing with respect to the assessment
proceedings, admittedly commenced in October, 2010 and
there was no reason for the assessment to be kept pending
till 29.12.2010, when the bribe was handed over. There is
also a valid inference from the above stated facts that the
Page 17 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
assessment was kept pending only to ensure the payment,
which as against A1 even as of now, does not stand
established. In fact, it has to be noticed that there was a huge
stash of money recovered from the room of A1 on which no
investigation was carried out nor a charge laid. A1 hence
goes scot-free on the recovery being not properly
investigated.
22. As has been found by the trial court so much of the
prosecution case regarding the role of A1 and A2 in the
assessment proceedings of PW1’s firm, the demand made
by A2, the complaint before the CBI and the pre-trap
proceedings stand fully corroborated by the evidence of
PW1, PW10, PW18 and PW22. The recorded conversation
pertaining to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were
eschewed from consideration by the Trial Court; rightly so.
We also do not place any reliance on the mobile
conversations, PW1 is said to have had with A2 from the
office of the CBI before the trap was laid and in the course
of the trap.
23. Insofar as the trap, we find PW10 and PW18 to have
prevaricated and deposed contrary to their Section 161
statements but still corroborated the version of PW1 and
Page 18 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
PW22 on many aspects. PW18 travelled with PW1 and PW22
while moving towards the Income Tax Office and PW10 was
in another car with the other team members, following the
car of the TLO. At the Income Tax Office, they dispersed and
PW18 went along with the TLO who was following PW1. PW1
is said to have gone into the room of A1 where he
categorically submits that he had handed over the
envelope, which A2 accepted and kept inside the pocket of
his coat. PW1 then came out of the room followed by A2 and
on his signaling TLO, the team rushed to PW1 who pointed
out A2. A2 was immediately held by his hands by PW22 and
a constable and taken back into the room of A1.
24. PW18, though did not identify A2 in Court, spoke of
the person who was apprehended by PW22 having been
required to sit in a chair in the room of A1. PW18 also
deposed that on the instruction of PW22, he had made a
search of the person caught by CBI and having recovered
the envelope from the coat pocket of the person
apprehended, which was handed over to the TLO. PW18
made these admissions referring to the person
apprehended by his name. PW10 on the other hand came
into the room after the apprehension of A2 and the money
Page 19 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
was recovered. Both PW10 and PW18 spoke of the hands of
the person apprehended having been washed with the test
solution which turned pink. PW10 though claimed to have
failing eyesight due to diabetes, on being asked so to do,
went around the Court looking at the persons standing there
and identified A2, specifically deposing that he looks
similar to the person caught by the CBI though at that time
the said gentleman was very healthy. In the cross
examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW10 specifically
deposed that the person who was caught and was identified
by him was similar to the accused Baljeet Singh present in
Court though he was not sure that it was the same Baljeet
Singh. PW10 also identified the sweater worn by A2, which
was also said to have been dipped in a separately prepared
solution, which too revealed the taint by turning pink; which
sweater was also identified though there was a minor
discrepancy regarding a black strip in the sweater, which is
not very relevant especially considering the passage of
time. The hand wash, and the wash of the coat and sweater;
both belonging to A2, was testified to by PW10 & the hand
wash and coat wash testified by PW18.
Page 20 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
25. PW18 though failed to identify A2, spoke of a person
from whom he recovered, on the instructions of PW22, an
envelope which was handed over to the TLO and identified.
The hand wash and the coat wash were also confirmed by
PW18. PW10 and PW18 spoke of A1 having been brought
to his room where already the trap laid had been
successfully completed. It cannot at all be said that PW10
and PW18, independent witnesses turned completely
hostile. As we observed, they had corroborated the pre-
trap proceedings and the post-trap proceedings,
immediately after the trap. While both spoke of the
prearranged envelope with the marked cash having been
recovered from the man apprehended in the room of A1,
from which PW1 and A2 stepped out; the latter following the
former, PW10 identified the apprehended man while PW18
failed so to do. There is sufficient corroboration available
from the independent witnesses to also believe the trap
having been successful as deposed by PW1 and PW22.
26. In this context, we cannot but notice the judgment of
this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi
4
Administration) . The complainant there, PW6, was an
4
(1979) 3 SCC 90
Page 21 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
architect concerned with the sanction of a building plan,
which was continuously being objected to by the Overseer-
Section Officer of the Delhi Development Authority, who
also demanded a bribe. The trap was laid with two
independent witnesses, in the course of which PW6 was
handed over a file by the accused which he read at a
distance and returned with the bribe amount of Rs.30/-
placed inside the file. When the file was handed over to the
accused, the accused placed it under the table putting his
foot on it. On the prearranged signal, the trap team came
inside the room and accosted the accused. The accused
denied the demand and also claimed the money to have
been kept in the file, without his knowledge. The
independent witnesses examined by the prosecution also
did not fully support the prosecution case resiling from the
statement made during the course of the investigation.
These circumstances were in favour of the accused and the
compelling argument in defense was that there can be no
conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of PW6,
the complainant who being a part of the trap was an
interested and partisan witness. Their Lordships found that
there cannot be found a legal proposition that the
Page 22 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness can never be
acted upon especially when the law laid down was to the
5
contrary, in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh and
6
Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave Rajuji v. State of Gujarat .
Having gone through the testimony of PW6, it was found that
he was a truthful witness and there was sufficient
corroboration by PW9 who led the trap team. It was stated
by PW9 that when he questioned the accused about having
accepted the bribe the accused was stunned and did not
reply and kept mum. PW2, the independent witness also
corroborated the fact and said that the accused did not reply
and kept mum and that he was perplexed, which though the
other independent witness first denied in chief examination,
accepted on further questioning.
5
27. It was categorically held in Basawan Singh , by a
Constitution Bench that there is no inflexible rule of
discarding the testimony of the persons in the raiding party,
unless independent corroboration is available. The trite law
is that the testimony of an interested or partisan witness has
to be scrutinized with care, and it is not that of an
5
AIR 1958 SC 500
6
AIR 1968 SC 1323
Page 23 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
accomplice. Neither is the complainant an accomplice, nor
can the persons involved in the raiding party be considered
to be interested since they are exercising a public duty
without any personal rancour. In the instant case, when the
independent witness had not fully supported the
prosecution story sufficient corroboration was found from
their deposition. A Constitution Bench of this Court in
7
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) approved
4
Prakash Chand and referred also to Sat Paul v. Delhi
8
Administration to hold that “even if a witness is treated as
“hostile” and is cross examined, his evidence cannot be
written off altogether but must be considered with due care
and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is
creditworthy must be considered and acted upon ” ( sic- para
67 ). The contention taken by the defense that the conduct of
the accused when challenged by the Inspector was
inadmissible under Section 162 was repelled. Relying on
9
Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash , it
was held that, when an accused person leads a police officer
to a particular location where stolen articles and weapons
7
(2023) 4 SCC 731
8
(1976) 1 SCC 727
9
(1972) 1 SCC 249
Page 24 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
are concealed, which have a connection with the offence
alleged, on such recovery, the concealment would be
admissible as relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 irrespective of whether any statement
by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to
such conduct, falls within the purview of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act.
28. We notice from the evidence of PW22 that after fully
corroborating the trap it was deposed that on being
challenged, A2 remained mum. It was also testified that A2
tried to escape and take out the money. It was PW1 who
pointed out the upper pocket of the coat of A2 where he had
kept the envelope which was taken out by PW18 as fully
corroborated by PW22. PW10 also stated that the man
apprehended in A1s room turned pale. All these are
relevant conduct of A2 pointing to his guilt fortified by the
recovery of the marked cash from his body and his hands,
coat and sweater, on being washed in the test solution,
turning pink, as deposed by the witnesses.
29. We are unable to accept the order of acquittal passed
by the High Court insofar as A2 is concerned, especially
noticing the demand having been specifically spoken of by
Page 25 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
PW1 and the same having been stated in his complaint
before the CBI. The pre-trap proceedings were also clearly
established by the evidence of PW1, PW10, PW18 and
PW22. Insofar as the trap proper is concerned, there is
complete corroboration of the testimony of PW1 by that of
PW22, the TLO. There is also sufficient corroboration from
PW10 & PW18, the independent witnesses regarding the
apprehension of a person, who was identified in Court by
PW10 and though not identified by PW18, it was PW18 who
made the recovery of the envelope from the coat pocket of
the apprehended person, who was A2. The hand wash of A2
also stood established beyond doubt. The marked notes
were identified from the numbers taken down in the HOM at
the time of pre-trap proceedings, corroborated by all the
above witnesses.
30. As rightly observed by the High Court, there was
neither proof of demand nor acceptance by A1 but for the
statement of PW1 that A2 demanded the bribe on behalf of
A1. There can be no reliance placed on such statement
made by the co-accused and there can be no conviction
entered into on that account. We are, however, inclined and
persuaded to set aside the acquittal against A2 and restore
Page 26 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
the order of the Trial Court convicting him for the offence
under Section 7 of the PC Act; there being no conspiracy
under Section 120B of IPC established. The sentence of four
years of RI handed down by the trial court is modified to one
year, considering the age of A2, with a fine of Rs.1 lakh with
a default simple imprisonment of three months as awarded
by the trial court, which will stand restored and confirmed.
A2 shall surrender within a period of four weeks from today.
31. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent
indicated above.
32. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……...…….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10, 2026.
Page 27 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 221
Criminal Appeal No…….………of 2026
[@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12486 of 2025]
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Appellant
Versus
Baljeet Singh
...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Leave granted.
2. Bereft of proof of the conspiracy theory and finding
absence of the demand of bribe, the conviction of both the
accused was overturned by the High Court. The Central
Bureau of Investigation (the ‘CBI’) which laid the trap at the
instance of the complaint made by PW1, is in appeal.
3. We heard Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindar Kumar,
learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Moraria, learned counsel for the appellant-CBI and Mr.
Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-
accused.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.03.11
09:57:48 IST
Reason:
4. PW1, the complainant, was the partner of a firm whose
st
Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act was the 1
Page 1 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
st
appellant/1 accused; A1. There was a notice issued to the
assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 as pending in the
nd
office of A1, to finalize which PW1 had approached the 2
nd
appellant/2 accused; A2, an Income Tax Inspector, who
was the subordinate of A1. It was the complaint of PW1 that
in October 2010, he had met both the appellants concerned
in connection with the scrutiny of the accounts of the firm in
which he was a partner, pursuant to which he was directed
to furnish information which also was submitted. On
27.12.2010, PW1 had gone to the Income Tax Office where
he met A2 who took him to A1. After discussions, when PW1
was coming out with A2, the latter made a demand of Rs.5
lakhs purportedly on behalf of A1. PW1 protested and the
second appellant having persisted, he haggled for a lesser
amount pointing out that in October 2010 the demand was
for a far lesser amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The second
appellant refused to budge, and this prompted PW1 to
approach the CBI with the complaint.
5. The complaint was verified by PW22, referred to as a
Trap Laying Officer (TLO). The TLO called for two
independent witnesses from the House Taxes Department of
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, PW10 and PW18. In the
Page 2 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
presence of the independent witnesses there was a
telephonic conversation between PW1 and A2, which was
recorded in a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) and transferred
to a CD. PW1 is alleged to have informed A2 that he had in
his possession only Rs.2 lakhs upon which A2 had directed
PW1 to come to his office in the Drum Shaped Building, IP
Estate, New Delhi. The pre-trap proceedings were carried
out in the presence of the independent witnesses wherein
200 notes of Rs.1000/- each, smeared with phenolphthalein
powder, after noting down their serial numbers, were kept
in an envelope which also was smeared with the powder.
The entire proceedings were recorded and reduced to
writing in the Handing Over Memo (HOM) signed by the
complainant, the TLO and the independent witnesses. PW1
was given a DVR to record the conversation likely to take
place between PW1 and A2.
6. The team reached the Income Tax Office upon which
PW1 followed by the TLO and the other members of the
team entered the building. PW1, on reaching the office of
A2 was informed that he is in A1’s room. PW1 then went to
the office room of A1, where he found only A2, to whom he
handed over the envelope, which A2 put in his coat pocket.
Page 3 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
PW1 walked out of the room followed by A2 and as
prearranged, touched his shoe to signal the TLO. The TLO
gave signal to the team and confronted A2 and took him
back into the room. The independent witnesses too
marched into the room, PW18 with the TLO, and PW10, a
little later with the other members of the team. The TLO and
another constable caught hold of the hands of A2 and one of
the independent witnesses, PW18 was asked to search A2.
As pointed out by PW1, the envelope was recovered from
the coat pocket of A2 by PW18 and handed over to the TLO.
The notes were taken out from the envelope recovered from
the coat pocket of A2 and both the hands of A2 being
submerged in two separate tumblers of Sodium Carbonate
solution, they turned pink revealing the taint of acceptance
of the powdered envelope with the marked notes.
7. The TLO asked for A1 who was said to be in the
Commissioner’s office. The TLO proceeded to the
Commissioner’s office and after making a request to the
Commissioner escorted A1 back to his room where the trap
team had detained A1. The statements were taken from both
A1 & A2 and the arrest recorded. After investigation charge
was framed of conspiracy under Section 120B and the
Page 4 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (for brevity, ‘the PC Act’).
8. The prosecution examined twenty-three witnesses
and produced relevant documents as also transcript of the
conversation between PW1 and A2 over telephone and in
person, recorded in the DVR. The defense examined three
witnesses, two of whom were Officers of the Income Tax
Department and DW2, a Junior Judicial Assistant at the
record room of the Sessions Court at Patiala House Courts.
The Trial Court listed out fifteen circumstances found
established and held the charge raised against both the
accused to have been proved. Convicting the accused
under Section 120B of the IPC r/w Section 7 of the PC Act
and separately under Section 7 of the PC Act, sentence was
imposed, of 4 years rigorous imprisonment on each count
and fine of Rs.1 lakh again on each count, for both, with
default sentences of simple imprisonment for 4 months
each.
9. The High Court, by the impugned decision, found that
there was no conspiracy proved and that there was no proof
of a demand having been made by A2 and A1. Disbelieving
the conspiracy angle, the trite principle that it is always
Page 5 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
difficult to establish the same since invariably it is
conceived and executed in privacy was noticed. Looking at
the evidence proffered it was found that merely for the
reason that A1 was the Assessing Officer and A2 was
assisting him, that by itself was not sufficient to establish a
prior meeting of minds between A1 and A2, in furtherance
of the commission of crime. Immediately we observe that,
having gone through the evidence led and the findings of
both the Trial Court and the High Court, we are inclined to
accept the said finding of the High Court, more particularly
for reason of there being absolutely no evidence of A1
having ever demanded a bribe from PW1, nor even the
demand made by A2 said to be in the presence of A1. We
may note that, while issuing notice in this case on
18.08.2025, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.12485 of 2025 filed by the CBI against the acquittal
of A1/Arun Kumar Gurjar.
10.
Insofar as the absence of proof of demand, the finding
of the High Court was that PW1 failed to disclose at the first
instance, about the initial demand of Rs.1,50,000/- in
October 2010, in the early part of his chief examination. This
was the first charge alleged under Section 120B of the IPC.
Page 6 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
Even in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, there was no mention
about the initial demand of Rs.1,50,000/- alleged to have
been made in October 2010. A casual statement was also
made regarding other contradictions and improvements in
the testimony of PW1 to hold that the demand was absent. It
was also observed that the transcription of the conversation
between PW1 and A2 over the telephone, in the presence of
the TLO and the independent witnesses only disclosed the
offer made by PW1 of Rs.2 lakhs, which was accepted by A2.
It was hence found that even on the crucial date i.e.
29.12.2010, there was no demand made of either Rs.5 lakhs
or 2 lakhs from the complainant. Having gone through the
testimonies, specifically of PW1, PW10, PW18 and PW 22,
we are unable to agree with the High Court, reasons for
which we would presently elaborate.
11. Before we look at the evidence, we should first notice
the compelling argument made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent that if the conspiracy element is
found to be absent then there is no cause to further examine
the records since the charge itself has to fail. Specific
reference is made to the charge-sheet produced as
Annexure R2 with the counter affidavit dated 27.10.2025
Page 7 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
filed by A2. We cannot but notice that there are two charges
raised, one under Section 120B of IPC r/w Section 7 of the
PC Act and the other under Section 7 of the PC Act; but
without the conspiracy angle, independently as against the
two accused. For completeness we extract the charges as
hereunder
“Firstly, that during the period of October, 2010 to
December, 2010, you Arun Kumar Gurjar, Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-29, New Delhi
and Baljeet Singh, Inspector, Income Tax , Range-
29 , New Delhi/IAP-V, CIT (Audit) 1, C.R Building,
New Delhi while posted and functioning as such
public servants entered into criminal conspiracy
and in pursuance thereof by abusing your official
position as public servants while scrutinizing the
income tax assessment of 2008-2009 of M/S Madhya
Pradesh Vanijaya Company you both demanded
illegal gratification of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- in the month
of October, 2010 from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal, the
partner of said company for scrutiny and finalizing
the income tax assessment without any hurdle and
when Sh. Pawan Aggarwal refused to pay the bribe
amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs, a notice dated 20.12.2010
was issued to the company by you Arun Kumar
Gurjar, and subsequently when Sh. Pawan
Aggarwal visited the office on 27.12.2010 you both
Sh. Arun Kumar Gurjar and Sh. Baljeet Singh again
demanded bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs fromSh. Pawan
Aggarwal for finalization of entire matter without
any hurdle and that illegal gratification of Rs.2 lakhs
was accepted by you accused Baljeet Singh on
29.12.2010 from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal on behalf of
yourself and accused Arun Kumar Gurjar which was
recovered from his possession by CBI team and thus
you both have committed an offence punishable u/s
120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 7 of
Page 8 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my
cognizance.
Secondly, you both while posted and
functioning as such public servants at aforesaid
place, period and dates in your capacity as public
servants by abusing your position as such public
servants demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5
lakhs from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal, the partner of M/S
Madhya Pradesh Vanijaya Company in lieu of
finalizing the scrutiny of assessment case of above-
noted firm without any hurdle and in furtherance of
said criminal conspiracy that on 29.12.2010 you Sh.
Baljeet Singh was caught red-handed by CBI team
while demanding and accepting Rs.2,00,000/-
(which was recovered by CBI team from possession
of Baljeet Singh) as part amount of said demanded
amount from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal for himself and on
behalf of Sh. Arun Kumar Gurjar in his office as
illegal gratification other than legal remuneration
as motive or reward for finalizing the scrutiny of
assessment case of the firm of Sh. Pawn Aggarwal
and subsequently you Arun Kumar Gurjar was also
arrested and thus you both have committed an
offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.”
12. We are unable to accept the contention put forth by
the respondent, for which reliance was placed on the
decisions in A. Srinivasulu v. State represented by the
1
Inspector of Police , Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. Central
2
Bureau of Investigation and Bhagat Ram v. State of
3
Rajasthan .
1
(2023) 13 SCC 705
2
(2019) 17 SCC 509
3
(1972) 2 SCC 466
Page 9 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
3
13. Bhagat Ram was a Police Inspector who was alleged
to have conspired with one Ram Swarup in an attempt to
extort an amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW1. The Trial Court
acquitted both the accused and in an appeal against
acquittal, the learned Judges of the High Court found the
charge under Section 120B of the IPC to be not proved.
However, there was a dispute on whether Bhagat Ram alone
can be convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and Section
5(1)(a) of the PC Act. A third judge found the conspiracy
angle to be proved, but due to the unanimous opinion
restrained himself from imposing any conviction under that
provision but still convicted Bhagat Ram under Section 161
IPC and also under Sections 347 and 389 of the IPC. This
Court found that the third judge could not have reopened
the entire case, since the issue before him was only limited
to the offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(a) of
the PC Act. It was also categorically found that the offence
under Section 161 IPC would not survive against one of the
accused since the specific case of the prosecution was that
Bhagat Ram made a demand of bribe through Ram Swarup
and there was no demand by Bhagat Ram directly to PW1.
This disabled the Court from convicting one of the accused,
Page 10 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
as having accepted the bribe while the person who made
the demand was exonerated. The facts in the present case
are quite distinct insofar as the prosecution having alleged
the demand and acceptance by A2, while there was also an
allegation of the bribe having been demanded for A1, who
was the Assessing Officer, whose culpability was not
established.
2
14. In Dashrath Singh , one of the accused had demanded
the bribe, even as per the complaint and when it was sought
to be handed over, he directed the money to be handed
over to the other accused, who accepted it. Hence, the
charge of demand was not available against one accused,
and the charge of acceptance was absent insofar as the
1
other accused. A. Srinivasulu also dealt with a criminal
conspiracy entered into by A1 to A7 to cause wrongful loss
to a public sector undertaking, in which A1 to A4 were
employees, so as to confer a wrongful gain on A5 to A7. It
was held that once the offence under Section 120B was not
made out against A5 to A7, the very foundation of the
prosecution becomes shaky. We are afraid the dictum in
those cases applies squarely to the facts of those cases only
and does not apply to the facts of this case.
Page 11 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
15. As we observed, in addition to the charge under
Section 120B, both the accused were separately alleged to
have demanded money and accepted it, which demand and
acceptance even as per the statement of PW1 is not
available against A1 but very much present against A2. That
A2 informed PW1 that the bribe was for A1 is of no
consequence insofar as A1’s culpability is concerned. Since
A2 was also an officer of the Department, which was
carrying on the assessment, actively participating in the
assessment proceedings as spoken of by PW1, A2 was in a
position of some authority to influence the assessment
proceedings, as far as PW1 was concerned and that was the
purpose for which the demand of bribe was made. True, 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.
Page 12 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
16. It was argued on behalf of the accused that there was
no demand proved and even the trial court noticed the
inconsistent stand regarding the demand in the complaint
and the testimony, especially regarding the demand made
in October 2010 and the amounts also did not tally. The pre-
trap demand alleged through telephone was not
established since the trial Court refused to give any
credence to the voice recording for reason of the
certification with respect to the electronic data under
Section 65B of the Evidence Act not being produced. The
voice recording at the time of trap also failed on the same
count. The charge of conspiracy being that related to the
demand in October the prosecution has to fail and there was
also no proof offered of the other demands alleged, is the
compelling argument.
17. The complainant was examined as PW1, who clearly
spoke of a demand of Rs.5 lakhs having been made by A2
on 27.12.2010 when they were coming out of the room of A1
after discussions took place with respect to the assessment.
True, with respect to the demand made in October 2010,
PW1 had different versions. In the original complaint, it was
stated that Rs.5 lakhs was demanded in October 2010 and
Page 13 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
reiterated in December 2010, when PW1 had visited the
Income Tax Office. In his deposition before Court, his
version was that earlier the demand was of Rs.1.5 lakhs and
later Rs.5 lakhs. This does not in any way totally efface the
demand having been made in December 2010 which tallies
with the statement in the complaint and the statement under
Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However,
though PW1 spoke that the bribe was demanded for both A1
and A2, there is no evidence that A1 ever demanded a bribe
or even that A2 made the demand in the presence of A1. It
is on such demand by A2 that PW1 approached the CBI,
which agency had authorized PW22 as the TLO, to carry out
the trap. The demand in October 2010 though not proved,
the demand made by A2 on 27.12.2010 was testified to by
PW1 and is corroborated by PW22 who vouches the
complaint filed before the CBI.
18. PW22 also spoke of the two independent witnesses,
PW10 and PW18 having been summoned to his office. Both
PW10 and PW18 confirmed the presence of PW1 in the office
of the CBI and corroborated fully the pre-trap proceedings.
That PW1 talked over the telephone to a person who asked
him to come to the Income Tax Office is also confirmed by
Page 14 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
PW10 and PW18, but without identifying the voice on the
other side. The pre-trap proceedings with respect to the
notes being powdered and kept in an envelope, which was
also powdered and handed over to PW1 was spoken of by
the independent witnesses. PW10 and PW18 spoke also of
the numbers of the notes having been recorded by the TLO
in the Hand Over Memo (HOM); Ex. PW1/E, which was
produced before Court along with the notes, PW1/F10 and
the envelope; PW1/E-9, signed by the complainant, the TLO
and the independent witnesses; proved by the testimonies
of the witnesses. The number of the notes produced tallied
with the HOM as verified by the trial court and the HOM was
specifically identified by both the witnesses, PW10 & PW18
who also identified the pre-trap verification memo PW1/E
recovery memo PW1/G, and the arrest memos of A1 & A2
PW10/A & PW10/B respectively.
19. A1 was the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax who was
the Assessing Officer of the firm in which PW1 was a partner,
and A2 was an Inspector in the same department is beyond
any cavil. There was a suggestion raised by A2 in the cross
examination of PW1 that he harbored enmity since he had
Page 15 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
conducted a scrutiny in a related firm carried on in the very
same premises in which was housed the firm of PW1. The
related firm had to shell out a huge penalty for the
discrepancies revealed on scrutiny. It was also the
suggestion of A2 that since A1 was the Assessing Officer of
PW1’s firm, there was no reason for A2 to demand or accept
any bribe from PW1 since he was not the authority entrusted
with the assessment of PW1.
20. PW1 readily accepted the scrutiny of the related firm
by a team led by A2 and also the penalty imposed on such
firm. There is nothing indicated other than this to establish
that the trap was laid merely on the enmity especially since,
as we would presently see, the acceptance of the bribe and
the recovery of the envelope with the marked cash was
made from the body of A2. PW1’s evidence was categoric
insofar as, after issuance of notice to his firm, he had
contacted A2 and A2 had been present when the issues
arising on the assessment were discussed with A1, the
Assessing Officer. The fact that A2 was an Inspector who had
conducted a survey operation with respect to a related firm,
who was also present during the hearing with respect to the
assessment proceedings before A1, clearly indicates that
Page 16 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
A2 was a person in a position of influence, which would also
validate PW1’s subservience insofar as understanding the
demand of bribe being made by a person of some authority.
21. It was further brought out in evidence through PW7,
another Inspector that A2 was transferred in
October/November 2010 and PW14, an Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax deposed that there was a
request made to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to
retain A2 in the present place. Undisputedly, A2 was
present in the Drum Shaped Building, on 27.12.2010, when
the demand was made and on 29.12.2010, when he was
trapped with the bribe, the marked notes in an envelope,
recovered from his person. One defense taken by the
accused before the Trial Court was that the assessment of
PW1’s firm had to be completed by 31.12.2010 and the
entire trap was stage-managed to ensure that the
assessment is time barred. As a corollary, it should also be
observed that the hearing with respect to the assessment
proceedings, admittedly commenced in October, 2010 and
there was no reason for the assessment to be kept pending
till 29.12.2010, when the bribe was handed over. There is
also a valid inference from the above stated facts that the
Page 17 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
assessment was kept pending only to ensure the payment,
which as against A1 even as of now, does not stand
established. In fact, it has to be noticed that there was a huge
stash of money recovered from the room of A1 on which no
investigation was carried out nor a charge laid. A1 hence
goes scot-free on the recovery being not properly
investigated.
22. As has been found by the trial court so much of the
prosecution case regarding the role of A1 and A2 in the
assessment proceedings of PW1’s firm, the demand made
by A2, the complaint before the CBI and the pre-trap
proceedings stand fully corroborated by the evidence of
PW1, PW10, PW18 and PW22. The recorded conversation
pertaining to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were
eschewed from consideration by the Trial Court; rightly so.
We also do not place any reliance on the mobile
conversations, PW1 is said to have had with A2 from the
office of the CBI before the trap was laid and in the course
of the trap.
23. Insofar as the trap, we find PW10 and PW18 to have
prevaricated and deposed contrary to their Section 161
statements but still corroborated the version of PW1 and
Page 18 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
PW22 on many aspects. PW18 travelled with PW1 and PW22
while moving towards the Income Tax Office and PW10 was
in another car with the other team members, following the
car of the TLO. At the Income Tax Office, they dispersed and
PW18 went along with the TLO who was following PW1. PW1
is said to have gone into the room of A1 where he
categorically submits that he had handed over the
envelope, which A2 accepted and kept inside the pocket of
his coat. PW1 then came out of the room followed by A2 and
on his signaling TLO, the team rushed to PW1 who pointed
out A2. A2 was immediately held by his hands by PW22 and
a constable and taken back into the room of A1.
24. PW18, though did not identify A2 in Court, spoke of
the person who was apprehended by PW22 having been
required to sit in a chair in the room of A1. PW18 also
deposed that on the instruction of PW22, he had made a
search of the person caught by CBI and having recovered
the envelope from the coat pocket of the person
apprehended, which was handed over to the TLO. PW18
made these admissions referring to the person
apprehended by his name. PW10 on the other hand came
into the room after the apprehension of A2 and the money
Page 19 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
was recovered. Both PW10 and PW18 spoke of the hands of
the person apprehended having been washed with the test
solution which turned pink. PW10 though claimed to have
failing eyesight due to diabetes, on being asked so to do,
went around the Court looking at the persons standing there
and identified A2, specifically deposing that he looks
similar to the person caught by the CBI though at that time
the said gentleman was very healthy. In the cross
examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW10 specifically
deposed that the person who was caught and was identified
by him was similar to the accused Baljeet Singh present in
Court though he was not sure that it was the same Baljeet
Singh. PW10 also identified the sweater worn by A2, which
was also said to have been dipped in a separately prepared
solution, which too revealed the taint by turning pink; which
sweater was also identified though there was a minor
discrepancy regarding a black strip in the sweater, which is
not very relevant especially considering the passage of
time. The hand wash, and the wash of the coat and sweater;
both belonging to A2, was testified to by PW10 & the hand
wash and coat wash testified by PW18.
Page 20 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
25. PW18 though failed to identify A2, spoke of a person
from whom he recovered, on the instructions of PW22, an
envelope which was handed over to the TLO and identified.
The hand wash and the coat wash were also confirmed by
PW18. PW10 and PW18 spoke of A1 having been brought
to his room where already the trap laid had been
successfully completed. It cannot at all be said that PW10
and PW18, independent witnesses turned completely
hostile. As we observed, they had corroborated the pre-
trap proceedings and the post-trap proceedings,
immediately after the trap. While both spoke of the
prearranged envelope with the marked cash having been
recovered from the man apprehended in the room of A1,
from which PW1 and A2 stepped out; the latter following the
former, PW10 identified the apprehended man while PW18
failed so to do. There is sufficient corroboration available
from the independent witnesses to also believe the trap
having been successful as deposed by PW1 and PW22.
26. In this context, we cannot but notice the judgment of
this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi
4
Administration) . The complainant there, PW6, was an
4
(1979) 3 SCC 90
Page 21 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
architect concerned with the sanction of a building plan,
which was continuously being objected to by the Overseer-
Section Officer of the Delhi Development Authority, who
also demanded a bribe. The trap was laid with two
independent witnesses, in the course of which PW6 was
handed over a file by the accused which he read at a
distance and returned with the bribe amount of Rs.30/-
placed inside the file. When the file was handed over to the
accused, the accused placed it under the table putting his
foot on it. On the prearranged signal, the trap team came
inside the room and accosted the accused. The accused
denied the demand and also claimed the money to have
been kept in the file, without his knowledge. The
independent witnesses examined by the prosecution also
did not fully support the prosecution case resiling from the
statement made during the course of the investigation.
These circumstances were in favour of the accused and the
compelling argument in defense was that there can be no
conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of PW6,
the complainant who being a part of the trap was an
interested and partisan witness. Their Lordships found that
there cannot be found a legal proposition that the
Page 22 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness can never be
acted upon especially when the law laid down was to the
5
contrary, in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh and
6
Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave Rajuji v. State of Gujarat .
Having gone through the testimony of PW6, it was found that
he was a truthful witness and there was sufficient
corroboration by PW9 who led the trap team. It was stated
by PW9 that when he questioned the accused about having
accepted the bribe the accused was stunned and did not
reply and kept mum. PW2, the independent witness also
corroborated the fact and said that the accused did not reply
and kept mum and that he was perplexed, which though the
other independent witness first denied in chief examination,
accepted on further questioning.
5
27. It was categorically held in Basawan Singh , by a
Constitution Bench that there is no inflexible rule of
discarding the testimony of the persons in the raiding party,
unless independent corroboration is available. The trite law
is that the testimony of an interested or partisan witness has
to be scrutinized with care, and it is not that of an
5
AIR 1958 SC 500
6
AIR 1968 SC 1323
Page 23 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
accomplice. Neither is the complainant an accomplice, nor
can the persons involved in the raiding party be considered
to be interested since they are exercising a public duty
without any personal rancour. In the instant case, when the
independent witness had not fully supported the
prosecution story sufficient corroboration was found from
their deposition. A Constitution Bench of this Court in
7
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) approved
4
Prakash Chand and referred also to Sat Paul v. Delhi
8
Administration to hold that “even if a witness is treated as
“hostile” and is cross examined, his evidence cannot be
written off altogether but must be considered with due care
and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is
creditworthy must be considered and acted upon ” ( sic- para
67 ). The contention taken by the defense that the conduct of
the accused when challenged by the Inspector was
inadmissible under Section 162 was repelled. Relying on
9
Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash , it
was held that, when an accused person leads a police officer
to a particular location where stolen articles and weapons
7
(2023) 4 SCC 731
8
(1976) 1 SCC 727
9
(1972) 1 SCC 249
Page 24 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
are concealed, which have a connection with the offence
alleged, on such recovery, the concealment would be
admissible as relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 irrespective of whether any statement
by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to
such conduct, falls within the purview of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act.
28. We notice from the evidence of PW22 that after fully
corroborating the trap it was deposed that on being
challenged, A2 remained mum. It was also testified that A2
tried to escape and take out the money. It was PW1 who
pointed out the upper pocket of the coat of A2 where he had
kept the envelope which was taken out by PW18 as fully
corroborated by PW22. PW10 also stated that the man
apprehended in A1s room turned pale. All these are
relevant conduct of A2 pointing to his guilt fortified by the
recovery of the marked cash from his body and his hands,
coat and sweater, on being washed in the test solution,
turning pink, as deposed by the witnesses.
29. We are unable to accept the order of acquittal passed
by the High Court insofar as A2 is concerned, especially
noticing the demand having been specifically spoken of by
Page 25 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
PW1 and the same having been stated in his complaint
before the CBI. The pre-trap proceedings were also clearly
established by the evidence of PW1, PW10, PW18 and
PW22. Insofar as the trap proper is concerned, there is
complete corroboration of the testimony of PW1 by that of
PW22, the TLO. There is also sufficient corroboration from
PW10 & PW18, the independent witnesses regarding the
apprehension of a person, who was identified in Court by
PW10 and though not identified by PW18, it was PW18 who
made the recovery of the envelope from the coat pocket of
the apprehended person, who was A2. The hand wash of A2
also stood established beyond doubt. The marked notes
were identified from the numbers taken down in the HOM at
the time of pre-trap proceedings, corroborated by all the
above witnesses.
30. As rightly observed by the High Court, there was
neither proof of demand nor acceptance by A1 but for the
statement of PW1 that A2 demanded the bribe on behalf of
A1. There can be no reliance placed on such statement
made by the co-accused and there can be no conviction
entered into on that account. We are, however, inclined and
persuaded to set aside the acquittal against A2 and restore
Page 26 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025
the order of the Trial Court convicting him for the offence
under Section 7 of the PC Act; there being no conspiracy
under Section 120B of IPC established. The sentence of four
years of RI handed down by the trial court is modified to one
year, considering the age of A2, with a fine of Rs.1 lakh with
a default simple imprisonment of three months as awarded
by the trial court, which will stand restored and confirmed.
A2 shall surrender within a period of four weeks from today.
31. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent
indicated above.
32. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……...…….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10, 2026.
Page 27 of 27
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025