Supreme Court Acquits Govt. Employees In Corruption Case; Says Prosecution Could Not Prove Allegations Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court.
The Supreme Court acquitted two government employees in a corruption case because the prosecution could not establish and prove the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court. The Appeals arose from a case involving an alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe by an Enforcement Inspector and an Office Assistant in the Supply Department, leading to their prosecution under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran held, “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 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.”
Senior Advocates Manoj Swarup and Arundhati Katju appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Hemendra Jaiiya represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The complaint alleged that he had applied for a Rajasthan Trade Authority license at the District Supply Office for selling food grains and edible oils. It was alleged that the Enforcement Inspector (Appellant) demanded a bribe for expediting the issuance of the license. When the complainant visited the District Supply Office the following day, the Office Assistant (Appellant), allegedly demanded a bribe on behalf of both accused. The complainant, after paying the required license fee, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which then laid a trap.
It was argued that the prosecution had not established the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellants contended that the complainant’s testimony contained inconsistencies, particularly regarding the amount allegedly demanded. Further, independent witnesses turned hostile and did not corroborate the prosecution’s case. It was also argued that the money was forcibly thrust upon the Appellants and that the prosecution’s reliance on the hand wash test was unreliable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that there were inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements. The Court noted that the witness was unable to recall the exact amount allegedly demanded by the Appellants, which contradicted his written complaint.
It further noted that the independent witnesses, both government employees who accompanied the trap team, did not witness the actual exchange of money. Instead, one of them testified that currency notes were found scattered on the floor, and another stated that the Appellant had feigned ignorance regarding the notes placed near them.
“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 complainant to the 1st accused who handed over half, to the 2nd accused; which amounts were said to have been put by both the accused in their trouser pockets,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Madan Lal v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 340)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Braj Kishore Mishra and Sanjeev Malhotra; Advocates Abhishek Yadav, Vikram Patralekh, Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Vishal Thakre, Anjale Kumari, Sadam Satya Narayana Raja Yadav and Gopal Singh
Respondent: Advocates Hemendra Jaiiya, Sandeep Malik and Sanjay Baranwal; AOR Milind Kumar
