Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 1126
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Bharat Raj Meena – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4732 of 2024 With Criminal Appeal No. 4733 of 2024
Decided On : 16-09-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Anti-Corruption
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT: S.114(g), S.133
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.7, S.13(2), S.20, S.19
Headnote
(B) Statutory Presumption under Section 20 - Presumption can only be drawn in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not under Section 13(1)(d); such presumption arises only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of acceptance of illegal gratification, which in turn requires proof of demand - Where prosecution fails to establish these primary facts, the presumption does not arise (Paras 47, 49, 74)
(C) Accomplice Evidence - Testimony of a pardoned accomplice is admissible under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, but according to the rule of prudence in Illustration (b) to Section 114, such witness is ordinarily unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars connecting the accused with the commission of the offence - Courts must scrutinize such evidence with great caution when demand and acceptance are sought to be proved through intermediaries (Paras 52-55)
(D) Role of Intermediaries - Acceptance through an intermediary acting on behalf of a public servant may satisfy statutory requirements; however, the prosecution must prove by reliable evidence that the intermediary acted under the authority, direction or for the benefit of the public servant and that the demand was attributable to them (Paras 50-51)
Facts of the case:
A public servant, while serving as a divisional security commissioner, was accused of orchestrating a system where personnel seeking favorable transfers or postings were required to pay illegal gratification through subordinate officials acting as intermediaries. The prosecution based its case on several transactions: one involving a trap operation where an intermediary was apprehended with tainted currency, and others based on the testimony of a pardoned accomplice and various bribe-givers. In one transaction, it was alleged that the public servant personally accepted money at his residence. The public servant was convicted by the trial court and, in some instances, the High Court.
Findings of Court:
In the trap transaction, the court found that while recovery from the intermediary was proved, the link to the public servant was missing; the intermediary's claim that money was to be delivered to the public servant's residence lacked corroboration, and the public servant had no authority over the transfer in question. Regarding the residence transaction, the evidence rested solely on the uncorroborated word of a pardoned accomplice and the bribe-giver, which was further contradicted by the public servant's contemporaneous diary indicating he was out of town on the alleged date.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant; whether the testimony of pardoned accomplices was sufficiently corroborated; and whether the statutory presumption under Section 20 was validly invoked.
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction under the Act cannot be sustained without establishing a chronological chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery traceable to the public servant. The statutory presumption under Section 20 cannot bridge the gap between money collected by an intermediary and actual obtainment by the public servant if foundational facts are not proved. Uncorroborated accomplice evidence is insufficient to establish guilt, especially when contradicted by documentary evidence.
Result: Appeals allowed; appellant acquitted of all charges.
For the Appellant : Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR, Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv., Mr. Bhargava Ravikumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, A.S.G., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv., Mr. Alankar Gupta, Adv., Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
JUDGEMENT :
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
1. These appeals arise out of a common anti-corruption investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation pursuant to FIR No. RC19(A)/2005/KER/CBI registered on 04.08.2005 by the Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Kochi, on allegations that the appellant, while serving as Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Palakkad, had abused his official position by demanding and obtaining illegal gratification through subordinate officials acting as intermediaries from Railway Protection Force personnel seeking transfers, postings and other service-related benefits. The investigation culminated in the filing of multiple final reports and the institution of several prosecutions founded on distinct alleged transactions of illegal gratification.
2. The present appeals arise from two such prosecutions, namely C.C. No. 2 of 2014 and C.C. No. 3 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam. By judgment dated 31.05.2016 in C.C. No. 2 of 2014, concerning the allegations made by complainant Nandakumar (PW-6), the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with a default sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment, no separate sentence being awarded under Section 7 of the Act.
3. By a separate judgment of the same date in C.C. No. 3 of 2015, concerning three transactions i.e., allegations made by T.V. Rajan (PW-9), C.K. Aravindan (PW-10) and N.P. Gopi Kumar (PW-11), the appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, with a default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment, in respect of the offences under Section 7 pertaining to the transactions involving alleged bribe giver C.K. Aravindan (PW-10) and Gopi Kumar (PW-11), and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with a default sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, all substantive sentences being directed to run concurrently.
4. The aforesaid convictions and sentences were affirmed by the High Court of Kerala by separate judgments and orders dated 24.05.2024 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2016 respectively. However, in Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2016, only the conviction pertaining to transaction involving bribe giver Gopi Kumar (PW-11) was upheld.
5. Since both appeals emanate from the same FIR, arise from a common investigation, involve overlapping evidence, common witnesses including approvers, and raise substantially identical questions concerning the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through intermediaries, the evidentiary value of approver testimony, the validity of prosecution sanction and the circumstances in which the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act may be invoked, they were heard together and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.
6. The prosecution case has its genesis in a complaint made by one P.P. Nandakumar, a Junior Clerk attached to the Personnel Branch of the Railway Protection Force at Palakkad. During the relevant period, namely December 2004 to August 2005, the appellant was serving as Divisional Security Commissioner (DSC), Railway Protection Force, Palakkad Division, Southern Railway. The appellant had assumed charge as Divisional Security Commissioner, Palakkad on 4 December 2004. The Palakkad Division exercised administrative control over a large number of Railway Protection Force establishments spread across parts of
