Supreme Court Restored Acquittal of Officer Convicted by High Court in Trap-Operation Bribe Case

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal by P. Somaraju challenging the High Court of Andhra Pradesh’s reversal of his trial acquittal and subsequent conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal arose from the High Court’s judgment of 08.07.2011 which set aside the Trial Court’s acquittal and sentenced the accused to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fines.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and restored the Trial Court’s order of acquittal dated 28.11.2003. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not shown compelling reasons to depart from the Trial Court’s careful reappraisal of evidence and had substituted its own inferences without addressing critical evidentiary gaps. The Court reiterated that “suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof,” and emphasised that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act “is not automatic and arises only once the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

Background The appellant was an Assistant Commissioner of Labour who faced allegations that he demanded and accepted a bribe during renewal of contract labour licences. The prosecution relied primarily on the complainant’s account and a trap operation conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), in which tainted notes were recovered from the accused’s table-drawer and mediators recorded serial numbers. The Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding material discrepancies in the complainant’s narrative, procedural lapses by the trap team (including exclusion of an independent mediator from the room at the crucial time), the negative result of a hand-rinse sodium carbonate test, and corroborative defence witnesses who stated the accused had briefly left the room and that the complainant was alone when the notes were placed. The High Court reversed the acquittal, accepting the prosecution view and convicting the appellant; the Supreme Court, on appeal, found the High Court had overstepped in reappreciation and had not adequately addressed the Trial Court’s reasons. The Court stressed that recovery of currency was insufficient without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, that the complainant’s testimony required corroboration, and that the defence witnesses were “natural” witnesses whose consistent evidence could not be lightly discarded. The Supreme Court therefore restored the acquittal, discharged bail bonds and allowed the appeal.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2014 (2025 INSC 1263) Case Title: P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]