Absence of conspiracy does not preclude independent conviction for bribery based on proven demand and recovery.

The complainant (PW1), a partner in a firm under income tax scrutiny, alleged that Baljeet Singh (A2), an Income Tax Inspector, demanded a bribe of ₹5 lakhs on behalf of the Assessing Officer, Arun Kumar Gurjar (A1).

The CBI conducted a trap operation on 29.12.2010 where A2 was caught with ₹2 lakhs in marked currency in his coat pocket.

While the Trial Court convicted both A1 and A2 for conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) and bribery (Section 7, PC Act), the High Court overturned the conviction, finding no proof of conspiracy or a clear demand.

The CBI appealed the acquittal of A2 (the appeal against A1's acquittal having been previously dismissed).

The Court applied Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, regarding public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration.

It relied on the Constitution Bench decisions in *State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh* and *Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, which established that the testimony of trap witnesses (complainants and raiding officers) is not that of "accomplices" and can be acted upon if found creditworthy, even without independent corroboration.

It further applied Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding "relevant conduct," noting that an accused’s reaction (e.g., turning pale or remaining mum) when confronted is admissible evidence.

The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the failure of the conspiracy charge necessitated total acquittal.

It distinguished the present case from *Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan*, noting that A2 was charged both for conspiracy and independently for demand and acceptance.

Although the digital voice recordings were excluded for lack of Section 65B certification, the Court found the oral testimony of PW1 (complainant) and PW22 (Trap Laying Officer) to be consistent regarding the demand made on 27.12.2010.

Crucially, while the independent witnesses (PW10 and PW18) prevaricated on identification, they corroborated the recovery of the marked envelope from A2's coat and the positive chemical hand-wash tests.

The Court held that under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, A2’s conduct—remaining "mum" and turning "pale" upon apprehension—served as significant circumstantial evidence of guilt.

The Court held that while the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was not established, the evidence was sufficient to prove "demand and acceptance" by A2 independently.

The Court restored the conviction of A2 under Section 7 of the PC Act but modified the sentence from four years to one year of rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the ₹1 lakh fine, citing the respondent’s age.

A2 was ordered to surrender within four weeks.