Full Judgment Text
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.
2. A trap sprung, on a complaint
lodged, led to the prosecution and conviction of an
Signature Not Verified
Enforcement Inspector and Office Assistant in the
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.03.07
17:29:22 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 14
Supply Department for demand and acceptance of
1
bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .
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.
3. The complaint leading to the trap,
was laid by PW 5, who applied for a Rajasthan Trade
Authority (RTAL), at the District Supply Office, for
carrying on sale of food grains and edible oils.
Processing the said application, an inspection was
conducted in the shop, for which the license was
applied for, by the Enforcement Inspector; by name
nd
Madan Lal, the 2 accused, who at the time of
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
st
also the Office Assistant; Narendra Kumar, the 1
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
2
bribe, approached the AntiCorruption Bureau 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.
4. We have heard Mr. Manoj Swarup,
nd
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2
accused, and Ms. Arundhati Katju, the learned
st
Senior Counsel appearing for the 1 accused. For
2 “ACB”
Page 3 of 14
the State, arguments were put forth by Mr.
Hemendra Jailiya, the learned Government Counsel.
5. PWs 1, 2, 6 and 7 were independent
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.
6. The Trial Court found that the
statement recorded before the Magistrate under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
3
1973 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.
7. Before us, it was argued that the
demand was not proved since the statement of PW
5complainant, had many inconsistencies and
differs considerably from Exhibit P1complaint. It
was argued that the demand is spoken only by PW5
nd
and it is unbelievable, especially since the 2
accused had on the very same day of the inspection
recommended the issuance of license, which, even
according to the complainant was handed over to
him at the venue of the trap, simultaneous to the
trap. The contention of both the accused was that
the money was thrust upon them and in the scuffle
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.
8. On the other hand, the learned
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.
9. Annexure P3 produced in I.A.
No.101620 of 2023 is the complaint made by PW 5
before the ACB. In the complaint, the allegation was
nd
that the 2 accused when he came for inspection to
the shop of the complainant, demanded an amount
of Rs. 200/ for approving maps, etc. and also spoke
of the necessity to give money to the concerned
clerk. The complainant then offered to speak to the
st
accused in their office; when the 1 accused
demanded Rs. 500/; Rs. 300/ for himself and Rs.
nd
200/ for the 2 accused. The complainant
protested, expressing inability to pay such an
st
amount and eventually, the 1 accused agreed to
settle for Rs. 400/. The complainant agreed to pay
the amount on the very next day i.e. 30.06.1994
and straightway approached the ACB.
Page 7 of 14
10. In the deposition before Court, PW 5
nd
submitted that while the 2 accused visited his
shop, he demanded Rs. 200 to 400 for expenses.
nd
The 2 accused also asked him to meet both the
st
accused next day in the office; where the 1 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.
11. We have given anxious consideration
to the evidence led. There are glaring
inconsistencies insofar as the amount of money
demanded. Further, in crossexamination, PW 5
again admitted that he does not remember the exact
nd
amount demanded by the 2 accused. Hence, in the
deposition before Court, the complainant was not
able to speak of the exact amount demanded by the
Page 8 of 14
st nd
1 accused or the 2 accused, contrary to his
assertion made in the complaint. The discrepancies
raise serious doubts as to the demand having been
made.
12. Insofar as the trap is concerned, PW
1 and 2 are the independent witnesses, government
employees, who were accompanying the trap team.
PW 1 stated that when he entered the scene of
crime, which was the office room, two currency
notes of Rs.100/ were lying scattered on the
ground which he picked up on demand made by the
st
officers of the ACB. He also deposed that the 1
accused had made a statement that the currency
notes fell down from the hands of the complainant.
He categorically, stated in crossexamination by the
Prosecutor, after being declared hostile, that he did
not see the physical transaction of bribe. PW 2, the
other independent witness, also stated that he went
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
nd
2 accused was sitting in a chair and currency
notes of Rs. 100/ was lying on the side of the chair
nd nd
on which the 2 accused was sitting and the 2
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
st
Rs.400/ to the 1 accused. He, specifically, denied
in the crossexamination by the Prosecutor, that
any statement was made by the complainant, that
st
after handing over of Rs. 400/ to the 1 accused,
st nd
the 1 accused handed over Rs 200/ to the 2
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
13. PW 3, the Inspector included in the
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
st
given the 1 accused Rs. 400/ and Rs. 200/ was
st nd
handed over by the 1 accused to the 2 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.
14. PW 6, as we noticed, was an
employee in the office of the accused who did not
subscribe to the prosecution story. PW 7 was an
auto driver who also did not toe the line of the
prosecution. PW 8 who led the trap team spoke of
the proceedings in tandem with the prosecution
story.
15. On an examination of the evidence,
there is considerable doubt raised in our mind,
which qualifies as reasonable doubt, as to whether
there was acceptance of bribe amounts by both the
accused. True, the officers of the trap team spoke
about the handing over of the money by the
Page 12 of 14
st
complainant to the 1 accused who handed over
nd
half, to the 2 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.
16. On an examination of the entire
evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution
has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt,
the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap
laid by the trap team of the ACB. In that
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.
17. Accordingly, the appeals stand
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.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 7, 2025.
Page 14 of 14
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.
2. A trap sprung, on a complaint
lodged, led to the prosecution and conviction of an
Signature Not Verified
Enforcement Inspector and Office Assistant in the
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.03.07
17:29:22 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 14
Supply Department for demand and acceptance of
1
bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .
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.
3. The complaint leading to the trap,
was laid by PW 5, who applied for a Rajasthan Trade
Authority (RTAL), at the District Supply Office, for
carrying on sale of food grains and edible oils.
Processing the said application, an inspection was
conducted in the shop, for which the license was
applied for, by the Enforcement Inspector; by name
nd
Madan Lal, the 2 accused, who at the time of
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
st
also the Office Assistant; Narendra Kumar, the 1
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
2
bribe, approached the AntiCorruption Bureau 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.
4. We have heard Mr. Manoj Swarup,
nd
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2
accused, and Ms. Arundhati Katju, the learned
st
Senior Counsel appearing for the 1 accused. For
2 “ACB”
Page 3 of 14
the State, arguments were put forth by Mr.
Hemendra Jailiya, the learned Government Counsel.
5. PWs 1, 2, 6 and 7 were independent
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.
6. The Trial Court found that the
statement recorded before the Magistrate under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
3
1973 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.
7. Before us, it was argued that the
demand was not proved since the statement of PW
5complainant, had many inconsistencies and
differs considerably from Exhibit P1complaint. It
was argued that the demand is spoken only by PW5
nd
and it is unbelievable, especially since the 2
accused had on the very same day of the inspection
recommended the issuance of license, which, even
according to the complainant was handed over to
him at the venue of the trap, simultaneous to the
trap. The contention of both the accused was that
the money was thrust upon them and in the scuffle
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.
8. On the other hand, the learned
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.
9. Annexure P3 produced in I.A.
No.101620 of 2023 is the complaint made by PW 5
before the ACB. In the complaint, the allegation was
nd
that the 2 accused when he came for inspection to
the shop of the complainant, demanded an amount
of Rs. 200/ for approving maps, etc. and also spoke
of the necessity to give money to the concerned
clerk. The complainant then offered to speak to the
st
accused in their office; when the 1 accused
demanded Rs. 500/; Rs. 300/ for himself and Rs.
nd
200/ for the 2 accused. The complainant
protested, expressing inability to pay such an
st
amount and eventually, the 1 accused agreed to
settle for Rs. 400/. The complainant agreed to pay
the amount on the very next day i.e. 30.06.1994
and straightway approached the ACB.
Page 7 of 14
10. In the deposition before Court, PW 5
nd
submitted that while the 2 accused visited his
shop, he demanded Rs. 200 to 400 for expenses.
nd
The 2 accused also asked him to meet both the
st
accused next day in the office; where the 1 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.
11. We have given anxious consideration
to the evidence led. There are glaring
inconsistencies insofar as the amount of money
demanded. Further, in crossexamination, PW 5
again admitted that he does not remember the exact
nd
amount demanded by the 2 accused. Hence, in the
deposition before Court, the complainant was not
able to speak of the exact amount demanded by the
Page 8 of 14
st nd
1 accused or the 2 accused, contrary to his
assertion made in the complaint. The discrepancies
raise serious doubts as to the demand having been
made.
12. Insofar as the trap is concerned, PW
1 and 2 are the independent witnesses, government
employees, who were accompanying the trap team.
PW 1 stated that when he entered the scene of
crime, which was the office room, two currency
notes of Rs.100/ were lying scattered on the
ground which he picked up on demand made by the
st
officers of the ACB. He also deposed that the 1
accused had made a statement that the currency
notes fell down from the hands of the complainant.
He categorically, stated in crossexamination by the
Prosecutor, after being declared hostile, that he did
not see the physical transaction of bribe. PW 2, the
other independent witness, also stated that he went
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
nd
2 accused was sitting in a chair and currency
notes of Rs. 100/ was lying on the side of the chair
nd nd
on which the 2 accused was sitting and the 2
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
st
Rs.400/ to the 1 accused. He, specifically, denied
in the crossexamination by the Prosecutor, that
any statement was made by the complainant, that
st
after handing over of Rs. 400/ to the 1 accused,
st nd
the 1 accused handed over Rs 200/ to the 2
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
13. PW 3, the Inspector included in the
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
st
given the 1 accused Rs. 400/ and Rs. 200/ was
st nd
handed over by the 1 accused to the 2 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.
14. PW 6, as we noticed, was an
employee in the office of the accused who did not
subscribe to the prosecution story. PW 7 was an
auto driver who also did not toe the line of the
prosecution. PW 8 who led the trap team spoke of
the proceedings in tandem with the prosecution
story.
15. On an examination of the evidence,
there is considerable doubt raised in our mind,
which qualifies as reasonable doubt, as to whether
there was acceptance of bribe amounts by both the
accused. True, the officers of the trap team spoke
about the handing over of the money by the
Page 12 of 14
st
complainant to the 1 accused who handed over
nd
half, to the 2 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.
16. On an examination of the entire
evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution
has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt,
the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap
laid by the trap team of the ACB. In that
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.
17. Accordingly, the appeals stand
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.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 7, 2025.
Page 14 of 14