2025 INSC 340

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______________OF 2025

MADAN LAL …Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN …Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._______________ OF 2025

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. A trap sprung, on a complaint

lodged, led to the prosecution and conviction of an

Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.03.07
Enforcement Inspector and Office Assistant in the
[Link] IST
Reason:

Page 1 of 14
Supply Department for demand and acceptance of

bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 1.

Both the accused were sentenced under Section

13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) with rigorous

imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/­

and a further sentence of R.I for six months under

Section 7(2) of the Act, also with a fine of Rs.

1000/­, with default sentences for failure to pay the

fine.

3. The complaint leading to the trap,

was laid by PW 5, who applied for a Rajasthan Trade

Authority (RTAL), at the District Supply Office, for

carrying on sale of food grains and edible oils.

Processing the said application, an inspection was

conducted in the shop, for which the license was

applied for, by the Enforcement Inspector; by name

Madan Lal, the 2nd accused, who at the time of

1 “P.C. Act”

Page 2 of 14
inspection demanded bribe for speeding up the

issuance of license. Following up with the demand,

PW 5 reached the DSO at Sri Ganganagar on the

very next day and met the Enforcement Officer as

also the Office Assistant; Narendra Kumar, the 1 st

accused, when the latter demanded bribe for both

the accused. PW 5 had paid the license fee of Rs.

1000/­ and being distraught with the demand of

bribe, approached the Anti­Corruption Bureau 2 who

laid the trap on the very next day. The prosecution

was built upon the demand alleged by PW 5 and the

trap proceedings, which ensued the complaint to the

ACB.

4. We have heard Mr. Manoj Swarup,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd

accused, and Ms. Arundhati Katju, the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st accused. For

2 “ACB”

Page 3 of 14
the State, arguments were put forth by Mr.

Hemendra Jailiya, the learned Government Counsel.

5. PWs 1, 2, 6 and 7 were independent

witnesses. PW 3, an Inspector of the ACB and PW 4,

a Constable, comprised the trap team led by PW 8,

the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The accused

examined two witnesses as DW 1 and 2.

6. The Trial Court found that the

statement recorded before the Magistrate under

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

19733 and Exhibit P­1, the complaint filed before the

ACB, supports the statements made in relation to

the demand. Asfar as the receipt of the amount,

reliance was placed on the official witnesses; while

the independent witnesses PWs 1 and 2, though

declared hostile, have spoken in tandem with the

official witnesses as to the setting up of the trap,

3 “Cr.P.C.”

Page 4 of 14
who also confirmed their signatures on the mahazar

drawn at the spot. The High Court also found the

various contentions raised by the accused and

affirmed the findings of the Trial Court, leading to

the conviction of the accused and the sentence

imposed.

7. Before us, it was argued that the

demand was not proved since the statement of PW

5­complainant, had many inconsistencies and

differs considerably from Exhibit P­1­complaint. It

was argued that the demand is spoken only by PW­5

and it is unbelievable, especially since the 2 nd

accused had on the very same day of the inspection

recommended the issuance of license, which, even

according to the complainant was handed over to

him at the venue of the trap, simultaneous to the

trap. The contention of both the accused was that

the money was thrust upon them and in the scuffle

Page 5 of 14
ensuing, some currency notes were scattered on the

floor which the police team who entered the room

directed the accused to pick up. Therefore, no

reliance can be placed on washing the hands and

dress of the accused, with the test solution. There is

no demand or acceptance as coming out from the

evidence led.

8. On the other hand, the learned

Government Counsel asserts that the trap

proceedings successfully caught the accused red­

handed. The demand was spoken of by the

complainant and all the official witnesses spoke of

the receipt of the money, which was further

validated by the test solution turning pink on

washing the hands of the accused and their dress.

The accused has failed to rebut the presumption

under Section 20 of the Act especially when the

demand and acceptance of bribe is unequivocally

Page 6 of 14
proved. The concurrent findings of the Courts

below do not warrant any interference.

9. Annexure P­3 produced in I.A.

No.101620 of 2023 is the complaint made by PW 5

before the ACB. In the complaint, the allegation was

that the 2nd accused when he came for inspection to

the shop of the complainant, demanded an amount

of Rs. 200/­ for approving maps, etc. and also spoke

of the necessity to give money to the concerned

clerk. The complainant then offered to speak to the

accused in their office; when the 1 st accused

demanded Rs. 500/­; Rs. 300/­ for himself and Rs.

200/­ for the 2nd accused. The complainant

protested, expressing inability to pay such an

amount and eventually, the 1st accused agreed to

settle for Rs. 400/­. The complainant agreed to pay

the amount on the very next day i.e. 30.06.1994

and straightway approached the ACB.

Page 7 of 14
 10. In the deposition before Court, PW 5

submitted that while the 2nd accused visited his

shop, he demanded Rs. 200 to 400 for expenses.

The 2nd accused also asked him to meet both the

accused next day in the office; where the 1st accused

is stated to have asked for money, the exact amount

of which, the complainant deposed, he was not sure

of. The complainant then submits that the matter

was settled for Rs. 400/­ and he had approached

the ACB immediately thereafter.

11. We have given anxious consideration

to the evidence led. There are glaring

inconsistencies insofar as the amount of money

demanded. Further, in cross­examination, PW 5

again admitted that he does not remember the exact

amount demanded by the 2nd accused. Hence, in the

deposition before Court, the complainant was not

able to speak of the exact amount demanded by the

Page 8 of 14
1st accused or the 2nd accused, contrary to his

assertion made in the complaint. The discrepancies

raise serious doubts as to the demand having been

made.

12. Insofar as the trap is concerned, PW

1 and 2 are the independent witnesses, government

employees, who were accompanying the trap team.

PW 1 stated that when he entered the scene of

crime, which was the office room, two currency

notes of Rs.100/­ were lying scattered on the

ground which he picked up on demand made by the

officers of the ACB. He also deposed that the 1 st

accused had made a statement that the currency

notes fell down from the hands of the complainant.

He categorically, stated in cross­examination by the

Prosecutor, after being declared hostile, that he did

not see the physical transaction of bribe. PW 2, the

other independent witness, also stated that he went

Page 9 of 14
into the scene of crime only after the complainant

signalled. He also, hence, was not a witness to the

handing over of the money. According to him, the

2nd accused was sitting in a chair and currency

notes of Rs. 100/­ was lying on the side of the chair

on which the 2nd accused was sitting and the 2 nd

accused feigned ignorance as to how the notes were

placed there. According to PW2, it was the

statement of the complainant that he had given

Rs.400/­ to the 1st accused. He, specifically, denied

in the cross­examination by the Prosecutor, that

any statement was made by the complainant, that

after handing over of Rs. 400/­ to the 1 st accused,

the 1st accused handed over Rs 200/­ to the 2 nd

accused. PW 6 was an employee of the district

supply office who also turned hostile. He spoke of

the scuffle that ensued when the complainant tried

to thrust the money into the pocket of the accused.

Page 10 of 14
 13. PW 3, the Inspector included in the

trap team deposed that after the complainant gave

the signal, the trap team moved into the office room

wherein the complainant had stated that he had

given the 1st accused Rs. 400/­ and Rs. 200/­ was

handed over by the 1st accused to the 2nd accused;

which currency notes were put by both accused in

their pant pocket. PW 3 had specifically stated that

when he went inside the office room, PW 4­

Constable and an independent witness was inside

the room. The name of the independent witness is

not specified, but we have already seen that both

the independent witnesses who accompanied the

trap team turned hostile. According to PW 4­

Constable, he had accompanied the complainant

into the room and had witnessed the entire

transaction. However, PW 1­independent witness

who was with the Constable has specifically stated

Page 11 of 14
in his deposition that both of them entered the room

after the complainant gave the signal; which was

after the money had passed hands. The complainant

gave the signal only after the alleged handing over of

money and receipt of the license.

14. PW 6, as we noticed, was an

employee in the office of the accused who did not

subscribe to the prosecution story. PW 7 was an

auto driver who also did not toe the line of the

prosecution. PW 8 who led the trap team spoke of

the proceedings in tandem with the prosecution

story.

15. 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

Page 12 of 14
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. PW 8 who led the trap team merely spoke

of a recovery of the bribe amounts from the

possession of the accused and the hands and

trousers of the accused having positively reacted to

the test solution. The said deposition is contrary to

the statements made by the independent witnesses

that some notes were found thrown on the floor.

None of the officers spoke of any of the accused

having taken out the notes and thrown it on the

floor.

16. 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

Page 13 of 14
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. The bail bonds, if any executed

by the accused, in these cases, shall stand

cancelled.

17. 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.

18. Pending application(s), if any, shall

……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 7, 2025.

Page 14 of 14