Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 365
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1808 of 2026)
The State of Kerala
...Appellant
Versus
K.A. Abdul Rasheed
...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. We have before us, divergent findings in a prosecution
initiated under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
1
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . The trial court convicted the
accused and imposed a sentence of two years both under Section
7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) to be suffered
concurrently along with a fine of Rs.10,000 and default sentence
under each of the two provisions. The High Court found that the
prevaricating deposition of the complainant who was examined as
Signature Not Verified
PW1 failed to establish the necessary ingredients to prove
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.04.15
16:55:35 IST
Reason:
1
‘the Act’
Page 1 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
offences under both the sections; particularly the demand. Placing
reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Neeraj
2
Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) the accused was acquitted and the
State is in appeal.
3. We heard Shri Raghenth Basant, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State who took us through the deposition of PW1
to argue that though inconsistent statements were made, there
was sufficient oral evidence regarding the demand and the
acceptance stood proved by the evidence of PW1 corroborated
by that of PW2 an independent witness and PW17, the officer who
led the trap. The acceptance of the amount is admitted by the
accused and the explanation offered was a deliberate falsehood.
4. Shri P.B. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondent/accused would first urge that the presumption
of innocence available to the accused stands fortified by the order
of acquittal passed by the High Court. Reliance was placed on
3
Jayaraj B. v. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein, it is urged, on
identical facts, this Court found the demand to be not proved
resulting in the acquittal of the accused. The cross examination is
specifically read out to point out that the complainant had denied
2
(2023) 4 SCC 731
3
2014 KHC 4199
Page 2 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
every line of his statement under Section 161 regarding the
demand.
5. The complainant was an Authorized Ration Dealer (ARD)
whose activities were subject to the control and supervision of the
Civil Service Department through the Taluk Supply Office. The
ARDs are required to produce the weekly accounts before the
Revenue Inspector (RI) in the Taluk Supply Office and get verified
the ‘Abstract’ of the changes in the ration cards, every three
months. The ‘Abstract’ is a copy of a register maintained at the
Taluk Supply Office, kept in the ration shop, which is required to
be verified by the RI and then countersigned by the Taluk Supply
Officer (TSO). The accused was the TSO responsible for the ARD
run by the complainant who consistently refused to countersign
the ‘Abstract’ and as per the prosecution case demanded a bribe
of Rs.500/- which was handed over pursuant to a trap laid. The
High Court found that the demand was not established by the
evidence of PW1 and one of the independent witnesses who had
accompanied the complainant into the cabin of the TSO, wherein
the handing over of the note took place, had not been examined;
thus creating a lacuna insofar as no direct evidence of a demand
having been adduced. There was also no proof of an offer made
Page 3 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
by the complainant to the accused at the time of handing over,
which, in the absence of a demand is a necessary ingredient
under Section 7. The demand though alleged to have been made,
the complainant turned hostile at the trial. These were the
grounds on which the acquittal was ordered by the High Court.
6. The deposition of the complainant PW1 in the translation has
been read over to us and that produced by the
respondents/accused in the vernacular was read by one of us
(KVC, J.), who is conversant with the language. As per the
deposition of PW1 when the ‘Abstract’ was produced before the
TSO, who is the accused, identified from the dock, he refused to
so to do. Again, the TSO refused to countersign the ‘Abstract’ in
the next week also when the complainant was informed by other
ration dealers that the TSO would countersign only if he is given a
bribe which was specified to be Rs.500/-. The statement made
before the Vigilance that there was a demand of Rs.500/- from the
accused, when confronted to PW1, though not denied, the answer
was that the complainant was informed that the refusal to
countersign was since he had not given a bribe. There were
inconsistent statements made which we will come to a little later.
Page 4 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
7. The fact that the complainant had approached the vigilance
department was not denied. It was also the statement of PW1 that
he had approached the vigilance department only because he
was not willing to bribe the TSO to get the counter signature. The
complaint having been made orally, it was taken down in hand by
PW17, who read over the same to the complainant and the
independent witnesses present, which stood confirmed as correct
by PW1, as deposed by PW1. The pre-trap proceedings were in
the presence of the independent witnesses; one an Assistant
Engineer of the PWD Special Building Section and the other a
Special Tahsildar, the former of whom was examined as PW2.
PW1 admitted having entrusted a note of Rs.500/- with the Dy.S.P
(PW17) for laying the trap, the details of which were noted in a
Mahazar after which the Dy.S.P put his initials on it. The note was
then covered with a powder after which, the effect of the powder
coating on the test solution was demonstrated. The First
Information Statement, which was the complaint taken down by
PW17, was marked as Ext.P1 and the marked note was marked as
M.O 1, before Court.
8. The independent witnesses along with the vigilance team
proceeded to the Taluk Supply Office in two vehicles. The
Page 5 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
complainant along with the Special Tahsildar, the independent
witness went to the cabin of the TSO and handed over the money.
The TSO is said to have received the note by his left hand and
placed it on the right upper drawer of his table. The complainant
and the independent witness walked out, and the complainant
raised his hand, which was the pre-arranged signal to the trap
team who rushed into the room led by PW17 and accompanied by
PW2, the other independent witness. The complainant also
followed the trap team into the cabin of the TSO where he saw the
Dy.S.P. securing the hands of the TSO/the accused. The Dy.S.P.
then introduced the independent witnesses to the accused and
asked the complainant as to where the marked note was placed
by the accused. On the complainant pointing out the drawer in
which the note was placed, the independent witnesses opened the
drawer but found no currency note inside that. On further search,
from the shirt pocket of the accused certain currency notes were
recovered, one of which was the marked note handed over by the
complainant to the accused. The right hand of the accused was
immersed in the test solution which did not evoke any result, but
the left hand when immersed into the test solution, it turned pink.
The shirt pocket also, on being sprinkled with the solution, turned
Page 6 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
pink which the complainant said he did not remember. There was
further currency notes recovered from the trouser pockets of the
accused in excess of that declared by him; which however is
explained as the proceeds of the sale of tickets in connection with
a boat race as deposed by PW3, the RI attached to the Taluk
Supply Office, with which we are not concerned.
9. The acceptance of the marked currency note from the
complainant PW1 by the accused, stands established
unequivocally. The pre and post-trap proceedings also were
spoken of by PW1 corroborated by both PW2 and PW17, the
independent witness and the lead trap officer. The finding of the
High Court was that the independent witness who accompanied
the complainant to the cabin of the accused was not examined
before Court. If at all there was an offer or demand of bribe for the
purpose of counter signature at the time of handing over of the
bribe it was he who could have deposed on that fact. The
prosecution, in any event did not have a case that there was any
offer made by PW1 pursuant to which the note was handed over.
Thus, there was no case of any offer made by the bribe giver
which along with the proof of acceptance of money could have
enabled a presumption under Section 20 of the Act, to bring in the
Page 7 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
guilt of the accused under Section 7 of the Act. As far as the
demand is concerned, there were prevaricating statements made
by the witness, which absolved the accused, was the finding of the
High Court. Before looking at the deposition of the witness, we
would look at the decisions relied on.
3
10. Jayaraj B as relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the
accused was a case in which the complainant disowned the very
complaint and stated in his deposition that the amount paid to the
accused was with a request to deposit it with the bank as a fee for
renewal of his license. The complainant having disowned the very
complaint made by him and there being no other evidence
available, the prosecution failed to bring home the offence under
Section 7, by the mere possession and recovery of the currency
notes from the accused. The use of an illegal means and abuse of
public office to obtain a pecuniary advantage also was held to be
not established which is required to prove the offence under
Section 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. Immediately, we have to
observe that the facts here are quite distinct since the complaint is
admitted, the pre and post trap proceedings are spoken to by the
complainant and corroborated by one of the independent
witnesses. Section 161 statement made by PW1, of the TSO having
Page 8 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
enquired as to whether the money was brought, confronted to
PW1 by the prosecution in cross examination was denied.
Probably the examination of the other independent witness, who
accompanied PW1 to the cabin of the accused, would have led to
credible evidence regarding the demand at the time the money
was handed over. But that is not to say that the demand could not
have been inferred otherwise from the deposition of PW1.
2
11. Neeraj Dutta in fact arose from a reference made with
respect to divergent opinions of three Judge Benches, one of
3 3
which as per the reference order was in Jayaraj B . Jayaraj B was
eventually approved, but on distinct facts as we found earlier.
2
Neeraj Dutta having considered the various decisions found that
in establishing illegal gratification by a public servant, an offence
under Section 7 is made out if there is an offer to pay, by the bribe
giver, without there being any demand by the public servant who
is proved to have accepted and received the illegal gratification.
This ingredient on facts is absent in the present case and so was
the demand at the time of handing over denied by PW1. Neeraj
2
Dutta held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue is a sine qua non
in order to establish the guilt of the public servant under Section 7
Page 9 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
and 13(1)(d) of the Act. Hence our enquiry is confined as to
whether the demand has been made, since the complaint, laying
of the trap and what transpired at the trap including the
acceptance of the bribe is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. As far as the demand is concerned, true, PW1 prevaricated
in his deposition though the complaint was that a specific demand
of Rs.500/- was made for the purpose of counter signing the
‘Abstract’. PW1, the complainant, deposed that it was his
inference that twice when the TSO, the accused, failed to
countersign the ‘Abstract’, it was for the purpose of taking a bribe
which was said to be spoken of by the other ration dealers also.
As is noticed by the High Court, in cross-examination the
complainant affirmed every suggestion made by the defense. This
is clearly with the purpose of helping the accused, especially
looking at the contents of the chief-examination.
13. We pause here to notice that the Constitution Bench in
2
Neeraj Dutta had specifically dealt with the efficacy of the
deposition of hostile witnesses. It referred with approval to Sat
4
Paul v. Delhi Administration wherein it was held:
“52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that
even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-
examined and contradicted with the leave of the court,
4
(1976) 1 SCC 727
Page 10 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a
matter of law, be treated as washed off the record
altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in
each case whether as a result of such cross-
examination and contradiction, the witness stands
thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in
regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that
in the process, the credit of the witness has not been
completely shaken, he may, after reading and
considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole,
with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the
other evidence on the record, that part of his
testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act
upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of
the witness is impugned, and in the process, the
witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the
Judge should as a matter of prudence, discard his
evidence in toto.”
[underlining supplied for emphasis]
14. With this in mind, as a matter of prudence, every court
considering the deposition of a hostile witness has to look at the
extent of the deposition, which is creditworthy to provide proof, of
the case set up. PW1 in his evidence spoke of the refusal of the
TSO to countersign the ‘Abstract’, which the ARD is liable to
maintain in his shop. PW1 was specifically confronted with a
statement that the demand of Rs.500/- was made by the accused
for the purpose of passing the card register which was the
statement made by him before the Vigilance Department; which
though not denied, he stated he did not remember. He was then
specifically confronted with a statement from his complaint that on
Page 11 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
13.07.2009 and 20.07.2009, the accused had demanded an amount
of Rs.500/-, which he affirmed and followed up with the statement
that he had gone to the vigilance office to hand over the money.
He spoke of the complaint having been given before PW17,
Dy.S.P, and at that time, there were three to five people present
there. He confirmed that the two independent witnesses, the
Special Tahsildar and the Assistant Engineer were present at that
time. The prosecution put a specific question as to whether the
statements made, taken down and read over to him were
confirmed as truthful before the witnesses, which was affirmed by
him before Court. His specific answer was that he was asked
whether the statements made were correct and he confirmed it.
Ext. P1 complaint was confronted to him and he gave an evasive
answer that whatever was in his memory he had stated to be
correct. Yet another question was put to him that Ext. P1 speaks
about the accused having twice demanded money from him. He
confirmed that he had stated so to the independent witnesses. A
further statement made in Ext. P1 that he endorsed the complaint
fully to the independent witnesses as truthful was also affirmed by
him.
Page 12 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
15. PW2 who was the independent witness spoke of he being
summoned to the vigilance office by 9:30 in the morning. On
reaching there he found the Special Tahsildar also present there
along with the Dy.S.P. and the complainant who were introduced.
PW1 made an oral complaint which was taken down by the Dy.S.P.
and PW1 confirmed to the independent witnesses that what has
been stated by him and later read over were correct. The further
trap proceedings regarding the marking of note and so on were
spoken of as deposed by PW1 itself. PW17 also spoke of the
complaint having been made by PW1 in the presence of the
independent witness, orally, which he had taken down and read
over to the complainant in the presence of the witnesses. Ext. P1
confronted to PW17 was further proved to be the FIS as recorded
by PW17 on the oral recital by PW1. The statements made in Ext.
P1 having been affirmed by PW1, his further statements regarding
his inference, personal feelings and the denial of various
statements in the Section 161 statement regarding the demand,
pales into insignificance. So much of the evidence of PW1 is
creditworthy and despite PW1 having accepted every suggestion
made by the defense in the cross examination, the credible
portion cannot be eschewed. True, PW1 prevaricated, but so
Page 13 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
much of the facts brought out by the prosecution on his
examination brings forth a demand having been made by the
accused to the complainant. The earlier demand, hence, stands
established despite the non-examination of the other independent
witness who could have only spoken of what transpired in the
course of the trap.
16. We also have to emphasize that the acceptance of the
Rs.500/- note is not only established but also admitted by the
accused. In the cross-examination of PW1, a suggestion was made
that PW1 was returning the amount taken as a loan from the
accused through one Swayam Prakash; denied by PW1. However,
under Section 313 the response as extracted by the trial court
indicates that the complainant had entrusted Rs.500/- to the TSO
for handing it over to one Swayam Prakash, working in the same
office as Office Attendant. Swayam Prakash examined as PW8
turned hostile and did not have a consistent case and his evidence
was that he had borrowed money from PW1 and there was no
reason for PW1 to borrow money from him. Though the accused is
entitled to take inconsistent stances in defense, the explanation
offered for accepting the amount cannot validly lead to a rebuttal,
if the suggestion made and explanation offered are contrary and
Page 14 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
the subject of the alleged loan itself having spoken yet otherwise
in his evidence. The false explanation given by the accused
insofar as the acceptance is another compelling circumstance
pointing to the guilt of the accused.
17. In fact, the High Court has noticed various portions in the
deposition of PW1 where he admits the demand, especially
certain portions of Ext. P1. The demeanor of the witness in the
box, as discernible from the evidence recorded, especially his
hesitance to make an answer immediately on a question being
asked was also noticed by the High Court. The evidence of PW2, it
was observed by the High Court, was not impeached by a shred
in the cross-examination by the defense. Despite these
observations, the High Court chose to find no demand having
been established; according to us erroneously. The evidence of
PW1 was pock marked with inconsistent versions, but it is for the
court to scrutinize the same and find out whether there is anything
creditworthy enabling proof of the allegation raised, which was
done by the trial court.
18. Herein the demand was raised as a complaint before the
vigilance and the statements to that extent made in the
complainant before the Vigilance Officer in the presence of
Page 15 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026
independent witnesses were affirmed by the complainant when
he was examined as PW1, which PW2 the independent witness
fully corroborated. This was further corroborated by the Vigilance
Officer, the lead trap officer PW17, who wrote down the
allegations on the oral complaint of PW1. He also spoke of the
complaint having been read over to the complainant who
confirmed it to himself; the scribe, and the independent witnesses
present. We allow the appeal setting aside the order of the High
Court and restoring the order of the trial court. Considering the
fact that the sentence awarded is the statutory minimum for the
offences we find no reason to tinker with the same.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 15, 2026.
Page 16 of 16
Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026