2026 INSC 365 Page 1 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026

(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1808 of 2026)

The State of Kerala

...Appellant

Versus

K.A. Abdul Rasheed

...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. We have before us, divergent findings in a prosecution

initiated under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

1

. The trial court convicted the

accused and imposed a sentence of two years both under Section

7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) to be suffered

concurrently along with a fine of Rs.10,000 and default sentence

under each of the two provisions. The High Court found that the

prevaricating deposition of the complainant who was examined as

PW1 failed to establish the necessary ingredients to prove

1

‘the Act’

Page 2 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

offences under both the sections; particularly the demand. Placing

reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Neeraj

Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi)

2

the accused was acquitted and the

State is in appeal.

3. We heard Shri Raghenth Basant, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the State who took us through the deposition of PW1

to argue that though inconsistent statements were made, there

was sufficient oral evidence regarding the demand and the

acceptance stood proved by the evidence of PW1 corroborated

by that of PW2 an independent witness and PW17, the officer who

led the trap. The acceptance of the amount is admitted by the

accused and the explanation offered was a deliberate falsehood.

4. Shri P.B. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the respondent/accused would first urge that the presumption

of innocence available to the accused stands fortified by the order

of acquittal passed by the High Court. Reliance was placed on

Jayaraj B. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

3

wherein, it is urged, on

identical facts, this Court found the demand to be not proved

resulting in the acquittal of the accused. The cross examination is

specifically read out to point out that the complainant had denied

2

(2023) 4 SCC 731

3

2014 KHC 4199

Page 3 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

every line of his statement under Section 161 regarding the

demand.

5. The complainant was an Authorized Ration Dealer (ARD)

whose activities were subject to the control and supervision of the

Civil Service Department through the Taluk Supply Office. The

ARDs are required to produce the weekly accounts before the

Revenue Inspector (RI) in the Taluk Supply Office and get verified

the ‘Abstract’ of the changes in the ration cards, every three

months. The ‘Abstract’ is a copy of a register maintained at the

Taluk Supply Office, kept in the ration shop, which is required to

be verified by the RI and then countersigned by the Taluk Supply

Officer (TSO). The accused was the TSO responsible for the ARD

run by the complainant who consistently refused to countersign

the ‘Abstract’ and as per the prosecution case demanded a bribe

of Rs.500/- which was handed over pursuant to a trap laid. The

High Court found that the demand was not established by the

evidence of PW1 and one of the independent witnesses who had

accompanied the complainant into the cabin of the TSO, wherein

the handing over of the note took place, had not been examined;

thus creating a lacuna insofar as no direct evidence of a demand

having been adduced. There was also no proof of an offer made

Page 4 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

by the complainant to the accused at the time of handing over,

which, in the absence of a demand is a necessary ingredient

under Section 7. The demand though alleged to have been made,

the complainant turned hostile at the trial. These were the

grounds on which the acquittal was ordered by the High Court.

6. The deposition of the complainant PW1 in the translation has

been read over to us and that produced by the

respondents/accused in the vernacular was read by one of us

(KVC, J.), who is conversant with the language. As per the

deposition of PW1 when the ‘Abstract’ was produced before the

TSO, who is the accused, identified from the dock, he refused to

so to do. Again, the TSO refused to countersign the ‘Abstract’ in

the next week also when the complainant was informed by other

ration dealers that the TSO would countersign only if he is given a

bribe which was specified to be Rs.500/-. The statement made

before the Vigilance that there was a demand of Rs.500/- from the

accused, when confronted to PW1, though not denied, the answer

was that the complainant was informed that the refusal to

countersign was since he had not given a bribe. There were

inconsistent statements made which we will come to a little later.

Page 5 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

7. The fact that the complainant had approached the vigilance

department was not denied. It was also the statement of PW1 that

he had approached the vigilance department only because he

was not willing to bribe the TSO to get the counter signature. The

complaint having been made orally, it was taken down in hand by

PW17, who read over the same to the complainant and the

independent witnesses present, which stood confirmed as correct

by PW1, as deposed by PW1. The pre-trap proceedings were in

the presence of the independent witnesses; one an Assistant

Engineer of the PWD Special Building Section and the other a

Special Tahsildar, the former of whom was examined as PW2.

PW1 admitted having entrusted a note of Rs.500/- with the Dy.S.P

(PW17) for laying the trap, the details of which were noted in a

Mahazar after which the Dy.S.P put his initials on it. The note was

then covered with a powder after which, the effect of the powder

coating on the test solution was demonstrated. The First

Information Statement, which was the complaint taken down by

PW17, was marked as Ext.P1 and the marked note was marked as

M.O 1, before Court.

8. The independent witnesses along with the vigilance team

proceeded to the Taluk Supply Office in two vehicles. The

Page 6 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

complainant along with the Special Tahsildar, the independent

witness went to the cabin of the TSO and handed over the money.

The TSO is said to have received the note by his left hand and

placed it on the right upper drawer of his table. The complainant

and the independent witness walked out, and the complainant

raised his hand, which was the pre-arranged signal to the trap

team who rushed into the room led by PW17 and accompanied by

PW2, the other independent witness. The complainant also

followed the trap team into the cabin of the TSO where he saw the

Dy.S.P. securing the hands of the TSO/the accused. The Dy.S.P.

then introduced the independent witnesses to the accused and

asked the complainant as to where the marked note was placed

by the accused. On the complainant pointing out the drawer in

which the note was placed, the independent witnesses opened the

drawer but found no currency note inside that. On further search,

from the shirt pocket of the accused certain currency notes were

recovered, one of which was the marked note handed over by the

complainant to the accused. The right hand of the accused was

immersed in the test solution which did not evoke any result, but

the left hand when immersed into the test solution, it turned pink.

The shirt pocket also, on being sprinkled with the solution, turned

Page 7 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

pink which the complainant said he did not remember. There was

further currency notes recovered from the trouser pockets of the

accused in excess of that declared by him; which however is

explained as the proceeds of the sale of tickets in connection with

a boat race as deposed by PW3, the RI attached to the Taluk

Supply Office, with which we are not concerned.

9. The acceptance of the marked currency note from the

complainant PW1 by the accused , stands established

unequivocally. The pre and post-trap proceedings also were

spoken of by PW1 corroborated by both PW2 and PW17, the

independent witness and the lead trap officer. The finding of the

High Court was that the independent witness who accompanied

the complainant to the cabin of the accused was not examined

before Court. If at all there was an offer or demand of bribe for the

purpose of counter signature at the time of handing over of the

bribe it was he who could have deposed on that fact. The

prosecution, in any event did not have a case that there was any

offer made by PW1 pursuant to which the note was handed over.

Thus, there was no case of any offer made by the bribe giver

which along with the proof of acceptance of money could have

enabled a presumption under Section 20 of the Act, to bring in the

Page 8 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

guilt of the accused under Section 7 of the Act. As far as the

demand is concerned, there were prevaricating statements made

by the witness, which absolved the accused, was the finding of the

High Court. Before looking at the deposition of the witness, we

would look at the decisions relied on.

10. Jayaraj B

3 as relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the

accused was a case in which the complainant disowned the very

complaint and stated in his deposition that the amount paid to the

accused was with a request to deposit it with the bank as a fee for

renewal of his license. The complainant having disowned the very

complaint made by him and there being no other evidence

available, the prosecution failed to bring home the offence under

Section 7, by the mere possession and recovery of the currency

notes from the accused. The use of an illegal means and abuse of

public office to obtain a pecuniary advantage also was held to be

not established which is required to prove the offence under

Section 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. Immediately, we have to

observe that the facts here are quite distinct since the complaint is

admitted, the pre and post trap proceedings are spoken to by the

complainant and corroborated by one of the independent

witnesses. Section 161 statement made by PW1, of the TSO having

Page 9 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

enquired as to whether the money was brought, confronted to

PW1 by the prosecution in cross examination was denied.

Probably the examination of the other independent witness, who

accompanied PW1 to the cabin of the accused, would have led to

credible evidence regarding the demand at the time the money

was handed over. But that is not to say that the demand could not

have been inferred otherwise from the deposition of PW1.

11. Neeraj Dutta

2 in fact arose from a reference made with

respect to divergent opinions of three Judge Benches, one of

which as per the reference order was in Jayaraj B

3. Jayaraj B

3 was

eventually approved, but on distinct facts as we found earlier.

Neeraj Dutta

2 having considered the various decisions found that

in establishing illegal gratification by a public servant, an offence

under Section 7 is made out if there is an offer to pay, by the bribe

giver, without there being any demand by the public servant who

is proved to have accepted and received the illegal gratification.

This ingredient on facts is absent in the present case and so was

the demand at the time of handing over denied by PW1. Neeraj

Dutta

2 held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal

gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue is a sine qua non

in order to establish the guilt of the public servant under Section 7

Page 10 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

and 13(1)(d) of the Act. Hence our enquiry is confined as to

whether the demand has been made, since the complaint, laying

of the trap and what transpired at the trap including the

acceptance of the bribe is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

12. As far as the demand is concerned, true, PW1 prevaricated

in his deposition though the complaint was that a specific demand

of Rs.500/- was made for the purpose of counter signing the

‘Abstract’. PW1, the complainant, deposed that it was his

inference that twice when the TSO, the accused , failed to

countersign the ‘Abstract’, it was for the purpose of taking a bribe

which was said to be spoken of by the other ration dealers also.

As is noticed by the High Court, in cross-examination the

complainant affirmed every suggestion made by the defense. This

is clearly with the purpose of helping the accused, especially

looking at the contents of the chief-examination.

13. We pause here to notice that the Constitution Bench in

Neeraj Dutta

2 had specifically dealt with the efficacy of the

deposition of hostile witnesses. It referred with approval to Sat

Paul v. Delhi Administration

4 wherein it was held:

“52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that

even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-

examined and contradicted with the leave of the court,

4

(1976) 1 SCC 727

Page 11 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a

matter of law, be treated as washed off the record

altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in

each case whether as a result of such cross -

examination and contradiction, the witness stands

thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in

regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that

in the process, the credit of the witness has not been

completely shaken, he may, after reading and

considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole,

with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the

other evidence on the record, that part of his

testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act

upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of

the witness is impugned, and in the process, the

witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the

Judge should as a matter of prudence, discard his

evidence in toto.”

[underlining supplied for emphasis]

14. With this in mind, as a matter of prudence, every court

considering the deposition of a hostile witness has to look at the

extent of the deposition, which is creditworthy to provide proof, of

the case set up. PW1 in his evidence spoke of the refusal of the

TSO to countersign the ‘Abstract’, which the ARD is liable to

maintain in his shop. PW1 was specifically confronted with a

statement that the demand of Rs.500/- was made by the accused

for the purpose of passing the card register which was the

statement made by him before the Vigilance Department; which

though not denied, he stated he did not remember. He was then

specifically confronted with a statement from his complaint that on

Page 12 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

13.07.2009 and 20.07.2009, the accused had demanded an amount

of Rs.500/-, which he affirmed and followed up with the statement

that he had gone to the vigilance office to hand over the money.

He spoke of the complaint having been given before PW17,

Dy.S.P, and at that time, there were three to five people present

there. He confirmed that the two independent witnesses, the

Special Tahsildar and the Assistant Engineer were present at that

time. The prosecution put a specific question as to whether the

statements made, taken down and read over to him were

confirmed as truthful before the witnesses, which was affirmed by

him before Court. His specific answer was that he was asked

whether the statements made were correct and he confirmed it.

Ext. P1 complaint was confronted to him and he gave an evasive

answer that whatever was in his memory he had stated to be

correct. Yet another question was put to him that Ext. P1 speaks

about the accused having twice demanded money from him. He

confirmed that he had stated so to the independent witnesses. A

further statement made in Ext. P1 that he endorsed the complaint

fully to the independent witnesses as truthful was also affirmed by

him.

Page 13 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

15. PW2 who was the independent witness spoke of he being

summoned to the vigilance office by 9:30 in the morning. On

reaching there he found the Special Tahsildar also present there

along with the Dy.S.P. and the complainant who were introduced.

PW1 made an oral complaint which was taken down by the Dy.S.P.

and PW1 confirmed to the independent witnesses that what has

been stated by him and later read over were correct. The further

trap proceedings regarding the marking of note and so on were

spoken of as deposed by PW1 itself. PW17 also spoke of the

complaint having been made by PW1 in the presence of the

independent witness, orally, which he had taken down and read

over to the complainant in the presence of the witnesses. Ext. P1

confronted to PW17 was further proved to be the FIS as recorded

by PW17 on the oral recital by PW1. The statements made in Ext.

P1 having been affirmed by PW1, his further statements regarding

his inference, personal feelings and the denial of various

statements in the Section 161 statement regarding the demand,

pales into insignificance. So much of the evidence of PW1 is

creditworthy and despite PW1 having accepted every suggestion

made by the defense in the cross examination, the credible

portion cannot be eschewed. True, PW1 prevaricated, but so

Page 14 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

much of the facts brought out by the prosecution on his

examination brings forth a demand having been made by the

accused to the complainant. The earlier demand, hence, stands

established despite the non-examination of the other independent

witness who could have only spoken of what transpired in the

course of the trap.

16. We also have to emphasize that the acceptance of the

Rs.500/- note is not only established but also admitted by the

accused. In the cross-examination of PW1, a suggestion was made

that PW1 was returning the amount taken as a loan from the

accused through one Swayam Prakash; denied by PW1. However,

under Section 313 the response as extracted by the trial court

indicates that the complainant had entrusted Rs.500/- to the TSO

for handing it over to one Swayam Prakash, working in the same

office as Office Attendant. Swayam Prakash examined as PW8

turned hostile and did not have a consistent case and his evidence

was that he had borrowed money from PW1 and there was no

reason for PW1 to borrow money from him. Though the accused is

entitled to take inconsistent stances in defense, the explanation

offered for accepting the amount cannot validly lead to a rebuttal,

if the suggestion made and explanation offered are contrary and

Page 15 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

the subject of the alleged loan itself having spoken yet otherwise

in his evidence. The false explanation given by the accused

insofar as the acceptance is another compelling circumstance

pointing to the guilt of the accused.

17. In fact, the High Court has noticed various portions in the

deposition of PW1 where he admits the demand , especially

certain portions of Ext. P1. The demeanor of the witness in the

box, as discernible from the evidence recorded, especially his

hesitance to make an answer immediately on a question being

asked was also noticed by the High Court. The evidence of PW2, it

was observed by the High Court, was not impeached by a shred

in the cross-examination by the defense. Despite these

observations, the High Court chose to find no demand having

been established; according to us erroneously. The evidence of

PW1 was pock marked with inconsistent versions, but it is for the

court to scrutinize the same and find out whether there is anything

creditworthy enabling proof of the allegation raised, which was

done by the trial court.

18. Herein the demand was raised as a complaint before the

vigilance and the statements to that extent made in the

complainant before the Vigilance Officer in the presence of

Page 16 of 16

Crl. A. @SLP(Crl.) 1808 of 2026

independent witnesses were affirmed by the complainant when

he was examined as PW1, which PW2 the independent witness

fully corroborated. This was further corroborated by the Vigilance

Officer, the lead trap officer PW17, who wrote down the

allegations on the oral complaint of PW1. He also spoke of the

complaint having been read over to the complainant who

confirmed it to himself; the scribe, and the independent witnesses

present. We allow the appeal setting aside the order of the High

Court and restoring the order of the trial court. Considering the

fact that the sentence awarded is the statutory minimum for the

offences we find no reason to tinker with the same.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……….……………………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR )

………… .…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN )

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 15, 2026.