Convictions for Alleged Bribe in Supply Department Set Aside for Failure to Prove Demand and Acceptance Beyond Reasonable Doubt

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard criminal appeals arising from prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in which an Enforcement Inspector and an Office Assistant of the District Supply Office, Sri Ganganagar, challenged their convictions for demand and acceptance of bribe. The appeals arose from a complaint and subsequent trap by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), and the Court considered whether the prosecution had proved the demand and receipt of money beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had not established the essentials of the offence. The Court noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement and that independent witnesses turned hostile or did not witness the alleged handing over of notes. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. The bail bonds, if any executed by the accused, in these cases, shall stand cancelled." The Court further held that the inconsistencies in amounts alleged and the sequence of events raised "considerable doubt" that qualified as reasonable doubt.

Background The dispute began when PW 5 applied for a Rajasthan Trade Authority licence at the District Supply Office and alleged that, during an inspection, the Enforcement Inspector (the 2nd accused) demanded money to expedite the licence. PW 5 later met both the Enforcement Inspector and the Office Assistant (the 1st accused), who allegedly demanded Rs. 500 (later purportedly reduced to Rs. 400). PW 5 paid the licence fee and complained to the ACB, which arranged a trap the next day. The Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 7(2) of the Act; the High Court affirmed those findings.

Before the Supreme Court, defence counsel challenged the prosecution case on multiple fronts: the complainant’s statements contained material inconsistencies, the amounts allegedly demanded varied between the complaint and testimony, independent witnesses either turned hostile or entered the scene after the alleged exchange, and the circumstantial aspects of the trap were disputed. The State relied on the trap team’s evidence, recoveries, and a test solution that reportedly stained the hands and clothing of the accused. The Court examined testimony of official and independent witnesses (PWs 1–8), noted that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution story of an actual hand-to-hand transfer, and recorded that the complainant himself could not consistently identify the precise amounts demanded. The Court concluded that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act did not arise where demand and acceptance were not established beyond reasonable doubt, and consequently set aside the convictions and sentences and ordered acquittal. The Court disposed of pending applications and ordered that any bail bonds executed by the accused "shall stand cancelled."

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 340 Case Title: Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manoj Swarup, Senior Counsel; Ms. Arundhati Katju, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, Government Counsel