Supreme Court: After A Corruption Complaint Received, Independent Witnesses Of Trap Team Also Need To Confirm Demand Made By Accused Personally

The Supreme Court observed that after a complaint related to corruption is received, the independent witnesses of the trap team are also required to confirm the demand made by the accused personally.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which the accused persons were convicted by reversing the finding of acquittal made by the Special Judge.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah elucidated, “The mere fact that accused no.3 is the appellant’s brother would not lead to a presumption in law that the money taken by him was meant for the appellant and that too, pursuant to demand being made by the appellant. It would also be important to take note of the fact that except for PW1-Complainant, no other witness/person was privy to the demand made to the complainant by the appellant. This does not satisfy the requirement that in trap cases where after a complaint is received, independent witnesses of the trap team are also required to confirm the demand made by the accused personally, which has not been done in the present case.”

The Bench added that the procedure of the trap case itself from the very inceptual stage suffers from serious legal lacuna, which cannot be now overcome.

Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan appeared for the Appellant/Accused while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee and Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi appeared for the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

The Appellant-accused was posted as an Assistant Administrative Officer in United India Insurance Company in the year 1999. His duty was to assist the Branch Manager in processing of claims submitted in the branch. Accused no. 2 was posted as the Regional Manager and his duty was to process claims submitted through the branches and forward it to higher authorities for approval. The branch of the insurance company fell under his jurisdiction. Accused no. 3 was the Appellant’s younger brother and was engaged in agriculture and business. A person (insured) had taken a Janata Personal Accident policy from the branch in 1997 for a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs and after the accidental death of the insured in 1999, his wife and nominee for the policy submitted claim for the insured sum in the branch.

The claim was submitted through the surveyor appointed by the branch as instructed by the Appellant. The Complainant was the maternal uncle of nominee and was authorized to pursue the settlement of the claim. During investigation, it emerged that the surveyor had submitted the investigation report on the claim of nominee to the Branch Manager. The Appellant made his recommendation and sent the file to the Branch Manager, who made his recommendation and referred the file to the Senior Divisional Manager, who in turn, recommended settlement of the claim and ordered to refer the file to the Regional Office for approval. The claim was sent for settlement and meanwhile, the Complainant met the Appellant requesting for early disposal of the claim.

Allegedly, the Appellant told the Complainant to arrange an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as bribe for himself and accused no. 2 for settlement of claim and travel with him to give share of the bribe. The Complainant did not agree to pay the same and thereafter, he gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The trap party led by him seized the currency notes and whisky bottle from the accused persons. Subsequently, a crime was registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The Trial Court acquitted the accused persons but the High Court convicted the Appellant and accused no. 3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… before the trap is set into motion, there should be corroboration of the allegation made by the complainant of actual and real demand being made by the accused-public servant as a quid pro quo for extending a favour to the complainant. On to the next stage of actual laying of trap, there also the appellant was nowhere in the picture. The prosecution’s effort of still trying to bring him under the ambit and scope of the corruption net clearly has not succeeded in the circumstances.”

Having analysed the evidence threadbare and considering the entire evidential gamut, the Court noted that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand of and acceptance of the bribe in the trap laid by the Police Inspector.

“This is, to be charitable to the investigative agency, at best a case of a botched-up trap with serious lapses committed by the investigative agency. The role of the SP and PW12 also calls for a detailed look, but in view of the fact that they are not before us, we refrain from further comment. At its worst, this case is an example of fabrication and attempted frame-up. Whatever be the truth of the matter, the fact remains that in either scenario, benefit of doubt has to flow to the appellant”, it remarked.

The Court, therefore, concluded that it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the Appellant in any view of the matter.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- M. Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 868)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan, AOR Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Advocates Sunny Kumar, Amartya, Sudhir Kumar Ojha, and Prateek Raush.

Respondent: ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Shubhendu Anand, Praneet Pranav, and Shaurya Rai.

Click here to read/download the Judgment