Raiding Party Members In Bribery Trap Cases Not To Be Considered As Interested Witnesses: Supreme Court
The Apex Court reiterated that officials participating in trap or raiding proceedings perform a public duty and cannot be treated as interested witnesses merely because they are part of the investigating team.
The Supreme Court has held that officials forming part of a raiding or trap party in bribery cases cannot be treated as interested witnesses merely because they participated in the trap proceedings.
The Court observed that such officers discharge a public duty while conducting the trap and do not act out of personal animosity, and therefore their testimony cannot be discarded solely on the ground that they were members of the raiding team.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed 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 scrutinised with care, and it is not that of an 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”.
Background
The case arose from a complaint made by a partner of a firm whose income tax assessment for the year 2008–09 was pending before the department. According to the complainant, an Income Tax Inspector demanded a bribe of ₹5 lakh in connection with finalising the assessment.
After the complainant approached the CBI, a trap was organised. Phenolphthalein-coated currency notes were prepared in the presence of independent witnesses and handed over to the complainant. During the trap, the complainant allegedly handed over ₹2 lakh to the Inspector, who accepted the money and kept it in his coat pocket.
The trap team immediately apprehended the accused. The tainted currency was recovered from his possession, and chemical tests conducted on his hands and clothing turned pink, indicating contact with the marked notes.
The trial court convicted both the Inspector and another senior officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act and for criminal conspiracy. However, the High Court overturned the conviction on the ground that demand and conspiracy had not been satisfactorily established.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court first examined whether the prosecution's case necessarily failed once the allegation of conspiracy was found unproven. The Court noted that the charges included not only conspiracy but also an independent charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Bench clarified that failure to establish conspiracy would not automatically defeat a separate charge of demand and acceptance of a bribe. The Court observed that where evidence clearly establishes demand and acceptance by one accused, conviction can still follow even if conspiracy with another accused is not proved.
Examining the evidence on record, the Court found that the complainant had specifically deposed that the Inspector demanded ₹5 lakh on 27 December during discussions relating to the assessment proceedings. Although there were inconsistencies regarding an earlier demand allegedly made in October, the Court held that these discrepancies did not undermine the specific demand made shortly before the trap.
The Court further noted that the complainant’s testimony regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe was corroborated by the trap-laying officer and the independent witnesses who had participated in the pre-trap proceedings.
The Bench observed that the pre-trap formalities, including preparation of the marked currency notes and recording of their serial numbers in the handing-over memo, were proved through documentary evidence and witness testimony. The recovery of the envelope containing the marked notes from the accused’s coat pocket during the trap was also confirmed by witnesses present at the scene.
Addressing the argument that the independent witnesses had partly resiled from their earlier statements, the Court held that such evidence could not be discarded entirely. Even if a witness is declared hostile, the portion of testimony that remains credible can still be relied upon.
Reaffirming the settled legal principle laid down in earlier precedents, the Court observed that the complainant in a trap case is not an accomplice. Likewise, officials participating in a raiding party act in discharge of public duty and cannot automatically be treated as interested witnesses.
The Court emphasised that the testimony of such witnesses must be evaluated with caution, but there is no legal rule requiring corroboration in every case. If the evidence of the complainant and trap witnesses is found trustworthy and supported by the recovery of tainted money and other circumstances, it can safely form the basis of a conviction.
The Bench also relied on the conduct of the accused at the time of the trap, including his silence when confronted and the recovery of marked currency from his possession. These circumstances, coupled with the chemical test confirming contact with phenolphthalein-coated notes, were considered strong corroborative evidence.
At the same time, the Court agreed with the High Court that there was no evidence establishing demand or acceptance of a bribe by the senior officer who had been charged with conspiracy. Consequently, his acquittal was upheld.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal of the superior officer, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove either demand or acceptance of a bribe against him.
However, the Court set aside the acquittal of the subordinate officer. It restored the conviction recorded by the trial court under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, observing that the evidence clearly established his demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
While maintaining the conviction, the Court modified the sentence considering the age of the accused. The sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court was reduced to one year of rigorous imprisonment, while the fine of ₹1 lakh with a default sentence was maintained.
The Court directed the accused to surrender within four weeks.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Baljeet Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 221)
Appearances
Appellant: Kanakamedala Ravindar Kumar, Additional Solicitor General, and Advocate Mukesh Kumar Moraria
Respondent: Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate