2026 INSC 221 Page 1 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No…….………of 2026

[@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12486 of 2025]

Central Bureau of Investigation

...Appellant

Versus

Baljeet Singh

...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Leave granted.

2. Bereft of proof of the conspiracy theory and finding

absence of the demand of bribe, the conviction of both the

accused was overturned by the High Court. The Central

Bureau of Investigation (the ‘CBI’) which laid the trap at the

instance of the complaint made by PW1, is in appeal.

3. We heard Mr. Kanakamedala Ravindar Kumar,

learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Mukesh Kumar

Moraria, learned counsel for the appellant-CBI and Mr.

Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-

accused.

4. PW1, the complainant, was the partner of a firm whose

Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act was the 1

st

Page 2 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

appellant/1

st

accused; A1. There was a notice issued to the

assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 as pending in the

office of A1, to finalize which PW1 had approached the 2

nd

appellant/2

nd

accused; A2, an Income Tax Inspector, who

was the subordinate of A1. It was the complaint of PW1 that

in October 2010, he had met both the appellants concerned

in connection with the scrutiny of the accounts of the firm in

which he was a partner, pursuant to which he was directed

to furnish information which also was submitted. On

27.12.2010, PW1 had gone to the Income Tax Office where

he met A2 who took him to A1. After discussions, when PW1

was coming out with A2, the latter made a demand of Rs.5

lakhs purportedly on behalf of A1. PW1 protested and the

second appellant having persisted, he haggled for a lesser

amount pointing out that in October 2010 the demand was

for a far lesser amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The second

appellant refused to budge, and this prompted PW1 to

approach the CBI with the complaint.

5. The complaint was verified by PW22, referred to as a

Trap Laying Officer (TLO). The TLO called for two

independent witnesses from the House Taxes Department of

the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, PW10 and PW18. In the

Page 3 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

presence of the independent witnesses there was a

telephonic conversation between PW1 and A2, which was

recorded in a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) and transferred

to a CD. PW1 is alleged to have informed A2 that he had in

his possession only Rs.2 lakhs upon which A2 had directed

PW1 to come to his office in the Drum Shaped Building, IP

Estate, New Delhi. The pre-trap proceedings were carried

out in the presence of the independent witnesses wherein

200 notes of Rs.1000/- each, smeared with phenolphthalein

powder, after noting down their serial numbers, were kept

in an envelope which also was smeared with the powder.

The entire proceedings were recorded and reduced to

writing in the Handing Over Memo (HOM) signed by the

complainant, the TLO and the independent witnesses. PW1

was given a DVR to record the conversation likely to take

place between PW1 and A2.

6. The team reached the Income Tax Office upon which

PW1 followed by the TLO and the other members of the

team entered the building. PW1, on reaching the office of

A2 was informed that he is in A1’s room. PW1 then went to

the office room of A1, where he found only A2, to whom he

handed over the envelope, which A2 put in his coat pocket.

Page 4 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

PW1 walked out of the room followed by A2 and as

prearranged, touched his shoe to signal the TLO. The TLO

gave signal to the team and confronted A2 and took him

back into the room. The independent witnesses to o

marched into the room, PW18 with the TLO, and PW10, a

little later with the other members of the team. The TLO and

another constable caught hold of the hands of A2 and one of

the independent witnesses, PW18 was asked to search A2.

As pointed out by PW1, the envelope was recovered from

the coat pocket of A2 by PW18 and handed over to the TLO.

The notes were taken out from the envelope recovered from

the coat pocket of A2 and both the hands of A2 being

submerged in two separate tumblers of Sodium Carbonate

solution, they turned pink revealing the taint of acceptance

of the powdered envelope with the marked notes.

7. The TLO asked for A1 who was said to be in the

Commissioner’s office. The TLO proceeded to the

Commissioner’s office and after making a request to the

Commissioner escorted A1 back to his room where the trap

team had detained A1. The statements were taken from both

A1 & A2 and the arrest recorded. After investigation charge

was framed of conspiracy under Section 120B and the

Page 5 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (for brevity, ‘the PC Act’).

8. The prosecution examined twenty-three witnesses

and produced relevant documents as also transcript of the

conversation between PW1 and A2 over telephone and in

person, recorded in the DVR. The defense examined three

witnesses, two of whom were Officers of the Income Tax

Department and DW2, a Junior Judicial Assistant at the

record room of the Sessions Court at Patiala House Courts.

The Trial Court listed out fifteen circumstances found

established and held the charge raised against both the

accused to have been proved. Convicting the accused

under Section 120B of the IPC r/w Section 7 of the PC Act

and separately under Section 7 of the PC Act, sentence was

imposed, of 4 years rigorous imprisonment on each count

and fine of Rs.1 lakh again on each count, for both, with

default sentences of simple imprisonment for 4 months

each.

9. The High Court, by the impugned decision, found that

there was no conspiracy proved and that there was no proof

of a demand having been made by A2 and A1. Disbelieving

the conspiracy angle, the trite principle that it is always

Page 6 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

difficult to establish the same since invariably it is

conceived and executed in privacy was noticed. Looking at

the evidence proffered it was found that merely for the

reason that A1 was the Assessing Officer and A2 was

assisting him, that by itself was not sufficient to establish a

prior meeting of minds between A1 and A2, in furtherance

of the commission of crime. Immediately we observe that,

having gone through the evidence led and the findings of

both the Trial Court and the High Court, we are inclined to

accept the said finding of the High Court, more particularly

for reason of there being absolutely no evidence of A1

having ever demanded a bribe from PW1, nor even the

demand made by A2 said to be in the presence of A1. We

may note that, while issuing notice in this case on

18.08.2025, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition

(Crl.) No.12485 of 2025 filed by the CBI against the acquittal

of A1/Arun Kumar Gurjar.

10. Insofar as the absence of proof of demand, the finding

of the High Court was that PW1 failed to disclose at the first

instance, about the initial demand of Rs.1,50,000/- in

October 2010, in the early part of his chief examination. This

was the first charge alleged under Section 120B of the IPC.

Page 7 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

Even in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, there was no mention

about the initial demand of Rs.1,50,000/- alleged to have

been made in October 2010. A casual statement was also

made regarding other contradictions and improvements in

the testimony of PW1 to hold that the demand was absent. It

was also observed that the transcription of the conversation

between PW1 and A2 over the telephone, in the presence of

the TLO and the independent witnesses only disclosed the

offer made by PW1 of Rs.2 lakhs, which was accepted by A2.

It was hence found that even on the crucial date i.e.

29.12.2010, there was no demand made of either Rs.5 lakhs

or 2 lakhs from the complainant. Having gone through the

testimonies, specifically of PW1, PW10, PW18 and PW 22,

we are unable to agree with the High Court, reasons for

which we would presently elaborate.

11. Before we look at the evidence, we should first notice

the compelling argument made by the learned Senior

Counsel for the respondent that if the conspiracy element is

found to be absent then there is no cause to further examine

the records since the charge itself has to fail. Specific

reference is made to the charge-sheet produced as

Annexure R2 with the counter affidavit dated 27.10.2025

Page 8 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

filed by A2. We cannot but notice that there are two charges

raised, one under Section 120B of IPC r/w Section 7 of the

PC Act and the other under Section 7 of the PC Act; but

without the conspiracy angle, independently as against the

two accused. For completeness we extract the charges as

hereunder

“Firstly, that during the period of October, 2010 to

December, 2010, you Arun Kumar Gurjar, Joint

Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-29, New Delhi

and Baljeet Singh, Inspector, Income Tax , Range-

29 , New Delhi/IAP-V, CIT (Audit) 1, C.R Building,

New Delhi while posted and functioning as such

public servants entered into criminal conspiracy

and in pursuance thereof by abusing your official

position as public servants while scrutinizing the

income tax assessment of 2008-2009 of M/S Madhya

Pradesh Vanijaya Company you both demanded

illegal gratification of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- in the month

of October, 2010 from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal, the

partner of said company for scrutiny and finalizing

the income tax assessment without any hurdle and

when Sh. Pawan Aggarwal refused to pay the bribe

amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs, a notice dated 20.12.2010

was issued to the company by you Arun Kumar

Gurjar, and subsequently when Sh. Pawan

Aggarwal visited the office on 27.12.2010 you both

Sh. Arun Kumar Gurjar and Sh. Baljeet Singh again

demanded bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs fromSh. Pawan

Aggarwal for finalization of entire matter without

any hurdle and that illegal gratification of Rs.2 lakhs

was accepted by you accused Baljeet Singh on

29.12.2010 from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal on behalf of

yourself and accused Arun Kumar Gurjar which was

recovered from his possession by CBI team and thus

you both have committed an offence punishable u/s

120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 7 of

Page 9 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my

cognizance.

Secondly, you both while posted and

functioning as such public servants at aforesaid

place, period and dates in your capacity as public

servants by abusing your position as such public

servants demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5

lakhs from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal, the partner of M/S

Madhya Pradesh Vanijaya Company in lieu of

finalizing the scrutiny of assessment case of above-

noted firm without any hurdle and in furtherance of

said criminal conspiracy that on 29.12.2010 you Sh.

Baljeet Singh was caught red-handed by CBI team

while demanding and accepting Rs.2,00,000/-

(which was recovered by CBI team from possession

of Baljeet Singh) as part amount of said demanded

amount from Sh. Pawan Aggarwal for himself and on

behalf of Sh. Arun Kumar Gurjar in his office as

illegal gratification other than legal remuneration

as motive or reward for finalizing the scrutiny of

assessment case of the firm of Sh. Pawn Aggarwal

and subsequently you Arun Kumar Gurjar was also

arrested and thus you both have committed an

offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.”

12. We are unable to accept the contention put forth by

the respondent, for which reliance was placed on the

decisions in A. Srinivasulu v. State represented by the

Inspector of Police

1, Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. Central

Bureau of Investigation

2 and Bhagat Ram v. State of

Rajasthan

3.

1

(2023) 13 SCC 705

2

(2019) 17 SCC 509

3

(1972) 2 SCC 466

Page 10 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

13. Bhagat Ram

3 was a Police Inspector who was alleged

to have conspired with one Ram Swarup in an attempt to

extort an amount of Rs.2,000/- from PW1. The Trial Court

acquitted both the accused and in an appeal against

acquittal, the learned Judges of the High Court found the

charge under Section 120B of the IPC to be not proved.

However, there was a dispute on whether Bhagat Ram alone

can be convicted under Section 161 of the IPC and Section

5(1)(a) of the PC Act. A third judge found the conspiracy

angle to be proved, but due to the unanimous opinion

restrained himself from imposing any conviction under that

provision but still convicted Bhagat Ram under Section 161

IPC and also under Sections 347 and 389 of the IPC. This

Court found that the third judge could not have reopened

the entire case, since the issue before him was only limited

to the offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(a) of

the PC Act. It was also categorically found that the offence

under Section 161 IPC would not survive against one of the

accused since the specific case of the prosecution was that

Bhagat Ram made a demand of bribe through Ram Swarup

and there was no demand by Bhagat Ram directly to PW1.

This disabled the Court from convicting one of the accused,

Page 11 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

as having accepted the bribe while the person who made

the demand was exonerated. The facts in the present case

are quite distinct insofar as the prosecution having alleged

the demand and acceptance by A2, while there was also an

allegation of the bribe having been demanded for A1, who

was the Assessing Officer, whose culpability was not

established.

14. In Dashrath Singh

2, one of the accused had demanded

the bribe, even as per the complaint and when it was sought

to be handed over, he directed the money to be handed

over to the other accused, who accepted it. Hence, the

charge of demand was not available against one accused,

and the charge of acceptance was absent insofar as the

other accused. A. Srinivasulu

1 also dealt with a criminal

conspiracy entered into by A1 to A7 to cause wrongful loss

to a public sector undertaking, in which A1 to A4 were

employees, so as to confer a wrongful gain on A5 to A7. It

was held that once the offence under Section 120B was not

made out against A5 to A7, the very foundation of the

prosecution becomes shaky. We are afraid the dictum in

those cases applies squarely to the facts of those cases only

and does not apply to the facts of this case.

Page 12 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

15. As we observed, in addition to the charge under

Section 120B, both the accused were separately alleged to

have demanded money and accepted it, which demand and

acceptance even as per the statement of PW1 is not

available against A1 but very much present against A2. That

A2 informed PW1 that the bribe was for A1 is of no

consequence insofar as A1’s culpability is concerned. Since

A2 was also an officer of the Department, which was

carrying on the assessment, actively participating in the

assessment proceedings as spoken of by PW1, A2 was in a

position of some authority to influence the assessment

proceedings, as far as PW1 was concerned and that was the

purpose for which the demand of bribe was made. True, if

the charge under the PC Act linked with the charge of

conspiracy was the only one levelled, then if one is

acquitted the other cannot be convicted. But here there is

another charge of demand and acceptance against both,

which as against the two are not inextricably linked by a

definite charge of conspiracy. The second charge can be

proved against both or against one independently as there

is no meeting of minds alleged.

Page 13 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

16. It was argued on behalf of the accused that there was

no demand proved and even the trial court noticed the

inconsistent stand regarding the demand in the complaint

and the testimony, especially regarding the demand made

in October 2010 and the amounts also did not tally. The pre-

trap demand alleged through telephone was not

established since the trial Court refused to give any

credence to the voice recording for reason of the

certification with respect to the electronic data under

Section 65B of the Evidence Act not being produced. The

voice recording at the time of trap also failed on the same

count. The charge of conspiracy being that related to the

demand in October the prosecution has to fail and there was

also no proof offered of the other demands alleged, is the

compelling argument.

17. The complainant was examined as PW1, who clearly

spoke of a demand of Rs.5 lakhs having been made by A2

on 27.12.2010 when they were coming out of the room of A1

after discussions took place with respect to the assessment.

True, with respect to the demand made in October 2010,

PW1 had different versions. In the original complaint, it was

stated that Rs.5 lakhs was demanded in October 2010 and

Page 14 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

reiterated in December 2010, when PW1 had visited the

Income Tax Office. In his deposition before Court, his

version was that earlier the demand was of Rs.1.5 lakhs and

later Rs.5 lakhs. This does not in any way totally efface the

demand having been made in December 2010 which tallies

with the statement in the complaint and the statement under

Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However,

though PW1 spoke that the bribe was demanded for both A1

and A2, there is no evidence that A1 ever demanded a bribe

or even that A2 made the demand in the presence of A1. It

is on such demand by A2 that PW1 approached the CBI,

which agency had authorized PW22 as the TLO, to carry out

the trap. The demand in October 2010 though not proved,

the demand made by A2 on 27.12.2010 was testified to by

PW1 and is corroborated by PW22 who vouches the

complaint filed before the CBI.

18. PW22 also spoke of the two independent witnesses,

PW10 and PW18 having been summoned to his office. Both

PW10 and PW18 confirmed the presence of PW1 in the office

of the CBI and corroborated fully the pre-trap proceedings.

That PW1 talked over the telephone to a person who asked

him to come to the Income Tax Office is also confirmed by

Page 15 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

PW10 and PW18, but without identifying the voice on the

other side. The pre-trap proceedings with respect to the

notes being powdered and kept in an envelope, which was

also powdered and handed over to PW1 was spoken of by

the independent witnesses. PW10 and PW18 spoke also of

the numbers of the notes having been recorded by the TLO

in the Hand Over Memo (HOM); Ex. PW1/E, which was

produced before Court along with the notes, PW1/F10 and

the envelope; PW1/E-9, signed by the complainant, the TLO

and the independent witnesses; proved by the testimonies

of the witnesses. The number of the notes produced tallied

with the HOM as verified by the trial court and the HOM was

specifically identified by both the witnesses, PW10 & PW18

who also identified the pre-trap verification memo PW1/E

recovery memo PW1/G, and the arrest memos of A1 & A2

PW10/A & PW10/B respectively.

19. A1 was the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax who was

the Assessing Officer of the firm in which PW1 was a partner,

and A2 was an Inspector in the same department is beyond

any cavil. There was a suggestion raised by A2 in the cross

examination of PW1 that he harbored enmity since he had

Page 16 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

conducted a scrutiny in a related firm carried on in the very

same premises in which was housed the firm of PW1. The

related firm had to shell out a huge penalty for the

discrepancies revealed on scrutiny. It was also the

suggestion of A2 that since A1 was the Assessing Officer of

PW1’s firm, there was no reason for A2 to demand or accept

any bribe from PW1 since he was not the authority entrusted

with the assessment of PW1.

20. PW1 readily accepted the scrutiny of the related firm

by a team led by A2 and also the penalty imposed on such

firm. There is nothing indicated other than this to establish

that the trap was laid merely on the enmity especially since,

as we would presently see, the acceptance of the bribe and

the recovery of the envelope with the marked cash was

made from the body of A2. PW1’s evidence was categoric

insofar as, after issuance of notice to his firm, he had

contacted A2 and A2 had been present when the issues

arising on the assessment were discussed with A1, the

Assessing Officer. The fact that A2 was an Inspector who had

conducted a survey operation with respect to a related firm,

who was also present during the hearing with respect to the

assessment proceedings before A1, clearly indicates that

Page 17 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

A2 was a person in a position of influence, which would also

validate PW1’s subservience insofar as understanding the

demand of bribe being made by a person of some authority.

21. It was further brought out in evidence through PW7,

another Inspector that A2 was transferred in

October/November 2010 and PW14, an Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax deposed that there was a

request made to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to

retain A2 in the present place. Undisputedly, A2 was

present in the Drum Shaped Building, on 27.12.2010, when

the demand was made and on 29.12.2010, when he was

trapped with the bribe, the marked notes in an envelope,

recovered from his person. One defense taken by the

accused before the Trial Court was that the assessment of

PW1’s firm had to be completed by 31.12.2010 and the

entire trap was stage-managed to ensure that the

assessment is time barred. As a corollary, it should also be

observed that the hearing with respect to the assessment

proceedings, admittedly commenced in October, 2010 and

there was no reason for the assessment to be kept pending

till 29.12.2010, when the bribe was handed over. There is

also a valid inference from the above stated facts that the

Page 18 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

assessment was kept pending only to ensure the payment,

which as against A1 even as of now, does not stand

established. In fact, it has to be noticed that there was a huge

stash of money recovered from the room of A1 on which no

investigation was carried out nor a charge laid. A1 hence

goes scot-free on the recovery being not properly

investigated.

22. As has been found by the trial court so much of the

prosecution case regarding the role of A1 and A2 in the

assessment proceedings of PW1’s firm, the demand made

by A2, the complaint before the CBI and the pre-trap

proceedings stand fully corroborated by the evidence of

PW1, PW10, PW18 and PW22. The recorded conversation

pertaining to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were

eschewed from consideration by the Trial Court; rightly so.

We also do not place any reliance on the mobile

conversations, PW1 is said to have had with A2 from the

office of the CBI before the trap was laid and in the course

of the trap.

23. Insofar as the trap, we find PW10 and PW18 to have

prevaricated and deposed contrary to their Section 161

statements but still corroborated the version of PW1 and

Page 19 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

PW22 on many aspects. PW18 travelled with PW1 and PW22

while moving towards the Income Tax Office and PW10 was

in another car with the other team members, following the

car of the TLO. At the Income Tax Office, they dispersed and

PW18 went along with the TLO who was following PW1. PW1

is said to have gone into the room of A1 where he

categorically submits that he had handed over the

envelope, which A2 accepted and kept inside the pocket of

his coat. PW1 then came out of the room followed by A2 and

on his signaling TLO, the team rushed to PW1 who pointed

out A2. A2 was immediately held by his hands by PW22 and

a constable and taken back into the room of A1.

24. PW18, though did not identify A2 in Court, spoke of

the person who was apprehended by PW22 having been

required to sit in a chair in the room of A1. PW18 also

deposed that on the instruction of PW22, he had made a

search of the person caught by CBI and having recovered

the envelope from the coat pocket of the person

apprehended, which was handed over to the TLO. PW18

made these admissions referring to the person

apprehended by his name. PW10 on the other hand came

into the room after the apprehension of A2 and the money

Page 20 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

was recovered. Both PW10 and PW18 spoke of the hands of

the person apprehended having been washed with the test

solution which turned pink. PW10 though claimed to have

failing eyesight due to diabetes, on being asked so to do,

went around the Court looking at the persons standing there

and identified A2, specifically deposing that he looks

similar to the person caught by the CBI though at that time

the said gentleman was very healthy . In the cross

examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW10 specifically

deposed that the person who was caught and was identified

by him was similar to the accused Baljeet Singh present in

Court though he was not sure that it was the same Baljeet

Singh. PW10 also identified the sweater worn by A2, which

was also said to have been dipped in a separately prepared

solution, which too revealed the taint by turning pink; which

sweater was also identified though there was a minor

discrepancy regarding a black strip in the sweater, which is

not very relevant especially considering the passage of

time. The hand wash, and the wash of the coat and sweater;

both belonging to A2, was testified to by PW10 & the hand

wash and coat wash testified by PW18.

Page 21 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

25. PW18 though failed to identify A2, spoke of a person

from whom he recovered, on the instructions of PW22, an

envelope which was handed over to the TLO and identified.

The hand wash and the coat wash were also confirmed by

PW18. PW10 and PW18 spoke of A1 having been brought

to his room where already the trap laid had been

successfully completed. It cannot at all be said that PW10

and PW18, independent witnesses turned completely

hostile. As we observed, they had corroborated the pre-

trap proceedings and the post-trap proceedings,

immediately after the trap. While both spoke of the

prearranged envelope with the marked cash having been

recovered from the man apprehended in the room of A1,

from which PW1 and A2 stepped out; the latter following the

former, PW10 identified the apprehended man while PW18

failed so to do. There is sufficient corroboration available

from the independent witnesses to also believe the trap

having been successful as deposed by PW1 and PW22.

26. In this context, we cannot but notice the judgment of

this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi

Administration)

4. The complainant there, PW6, was an

4

(1979) 3 SCC 90

Page 22 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

architect concerned with the sanction of a building plan,

which was continuously being objected to by the Overseer-

Section Officer of the Delhi Development Authority, who

also demanded a bribe. The trap was laid with two

independent witnesses, in the course of which PW6 was

handed over a file by the accused which he read at a

distance and returned with the bribe amount of Rs.30/-

placed inside the file. When the file was handed over to the

accused, the accused placed it under the table putting his

foot on it. On the prearranged signal, the trap team came

inside the room and accosted the accused. The accused

denied the demand and also claimed the money to have

been kept in the file, without his knowledge. The

independent witnesses examined by the prosecution also

did not fully support the prosecution case resiling from the

statement made during the course of the investigation.

These circumstances were in favour of the accused and the

compelling argument in defense was that there can be no

conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of PW6,

the complainant who being a part of the trap was an

interested and partisan witness. Their Lordships found that

there cannot be found a legal proposition that the

Page 23 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness can never be

acted upon especially when the law laid down was to the

contrary, in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh

5 and

Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave Rajuji v. State of Gujarat

6.

Having gone through the testimony of PW6, it was found that

he was a truthful witness and there was sufficient

corroboration by PW9 who led the trap team. It was stated

by PW9 that when he questioned the accused about having

accepted the bribe the accused was stunned and did not

reply and kept mum. PW2, the independent witness also

corroborated the fact and said that the accused did not reply

and kept mum and that he was perplexed, which though the

other independent witness first denied in chief examination,

accepted on further questioning.

27. It was categorically held in Basawan Singh

5, by a

Constitution Bench that there is no inflexible rule of

discarding the testimony of the persons in the raiding party,

unless independent corroboration is available. The trite law

is that the testimony of an interested or partisan witness has

to be scrutinized with care, and it is not that of an

5

AIR 1958 SC 500

6

AIR 1968 SC 1323

Page 24 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

accomplice. Neither is the complainant an accomplice, nor

can the persons involved in the raiding party be considered

to be interested since they are exercising a public duty

without any personal rancour. In the instant case, when the

independent witness had not fully supported the

prosecution story sufficient corroboration was found from

their deposition. A Constitution Bench of this Court in

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

7 approved

Prakash Chand

4 and referred also to Sat Paul v. Delhi

Administration

8 to hold that “even if a witness is treated as

“hostile” and is cross examined, his evidence cannot be

written off altogether but must be considered with due care

and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is

creditworthy must be considered and acted upon” (sic-para

67). The contention taken by the defense that the conduct of

the accused when challenged by the Inspector was

inadmissible under Section 162 was repelled. Relying on

Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash

9, it

was held that, when an accused person leads a police officer

to a particular location where stolen articles and weapons

7

(2023) 4 SCC 731

8

(1976) 1 SCC 727

9

(1972) 1 SCC 249

Page 25 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

are concealed, which have a connection with the offence

alleged, on such recovery, the concealment would be

admissible as relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 irrespective of whether any statement

by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to

such conduct, falls within the purview of Section 27 of the

Evidence Act.

28. We notice from the evidence of PW22 that after fully

corroborating the trap it was deposed that on being

challenged, A2 remained mum. It was also testified that A2

tried to escape and take out the money. It was PW1 who

pointed out the upper pocket of the coat of A2 where he had

kept the envelope which was taken out by PW18 as fully

corroborated by PW22. PW10 also stated that the man

apprehended in A1s room turned pale. All these are

relevant conduct of A2 pointing to his guilt fortified by the

recovery of the marked cash from his body and his hands,

coat and sweater, on being washed in the test solution,

turning pink, as deposed by the witnesses.

29. We are unable to accept the order of acquittal passed

by the High Court insofar as A2 is concerned, especially

noticing the demand having been specifically spoken of by

Page 26 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

PW1 and the same having been stated in his complaint

before the CBI. The pre-trap proceedings were also clearly

established by the evidence of PW1, PW10, PW18 and

PW22. Insofar as the trap proper is concerned, there is

complete corroboration of the testimony of PW1 by that of

PW22, the TLO. There is also sufficient corroboration from

PW10 & PW18, the independent witnesses regarding the

apprehension of a person, who was identified in Court by

PW10 and though not identified by PW18, it was PW18 who

made the recovery of the envelope from the coat pocket of

the apprehended person, who was A2. The hand wash of A2

also stood established beyond doubt. The marked notes

were identified from the numbers taken down in the HOM at

the time of pre-trap proceedings, corroborated by all the

above witnesses.

30. As rightly observed by the High Court, there was

neither proof of demand nor acceptance by A1 but for the

statement of PW1 that A2 demanded the bribe on behalf of

A1. There can be no reliance placed on such statement

made by the co-accused and there can be no conviction

entered into on that account. We are, however, inclined and

persuaded to set aside the acquittal against A2 and restore

Page 27 of 27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.12486 of 2025

the order of the Trial Court convicting him for the offence

under Section 7 of the PC Act; there being no conspiracy

under Section 120B of IPC established. The sentence of four

years of RI handed down by the trial court is modified to one

year, considering the age of A2, with a fine of Rs.1 lakh with

a default simple imprisonment of three months as awarded

by the trial court, which will stand restored and confirmed.

A2 shall surrender within a period of four weeks from today.

31. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent

indicated above.

32. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

……...…….……………………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

...………… .……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN )

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 10, 2026.