Forensic Voice Matches and Constructive Possession Sustain Corruption Charges Despite Unsuccessful Decoy Trap

The applicant, a public servant, sought the quashing of FIR C.R. No. 11194075240001/2024 registered under Sections 7A, 12, 13(1), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 ("PC Act"), and Sections 120B and 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that during a decoy trap at the Mandavi Police Check Post, a co-accused (Nilesh Tadvi) was apprehended and his mobile phone revealed audio files of the applicant ("Guruji") instructing the collection and routing of illegal gratification from passers-by.

The applicant contended that since the decoy trap was unsuccessful and he was not physically present or involved in a direct "demand, acceptance, and recovery," no case was made out.

The Court applied the standards for quashing under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permits quashing only if allegations are inherently improbable or fail to disclose an offence.

Regarding corruption, it distinguished the pre-2018 requirements in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava from the amended PC Act.

It relied on State by Lokayukta Police v. Rangaya (2026) to hold that Section 7A penalizes even "attempts" to obtain undue advantage through third parties.

The court underscored Section 12 for abetment (which is complete regardless of the result of the trap) and Section 13(1)(b) for "illicit enrichment," including assets held by others on behalf of the public servant.

The Court rejected the applicant's reliance on the "demand, acceptance, and recovery" rule, noting that it primarily applies to pre-2018 cases and isolated acts of bribery, whereas the current case involves an institutionalized extortion ring.

The Court observed that the FSL Voice Spectrography Report matched the applicant’s voice to calls where he gave operational directives for managing extorted cash.

It reasoned that under the amended Section 13(1)(b), "illicit enrichment" does not require physical possession of funds if they are held by a person on the public servant's behalf (constructive possession).

The applicant’s non-presence at the trap was deemed irrelevant because Section 7A and Section 12 (Abetment) criminalize the instigation and orchestration of the crime, which were prima facie evidenced by the intercepted communications.

It held that the digital trail, witness statements, and forensic reports sufficiently link the applicant to the alleged conspiracy and illicit enrichment scheme to warrant a trial.

The Court concluded that the factual disputes regarding the sufficiency of "demand" or the weight of electronic evidence are matters for the trial court and cannot be adjudicated at the quashing stage.