1. Conviction for demanding and accepting bribe for preparing salary arrears — challenged on grounds of improper recording of statement and insufficient evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjay Dhar, J
Habibullah Kumar – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
CrlA(S) No.11/2025
Important Points
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a partisan complainant when the initial demand of a bribe is not proven and evidence of previous enmity exists, regardless of the recovery of tainted money.
Subject
Criminal Law - Anti-Corruption
Act Referred
J&K Prevention of Corruption Act: S.5(1)(d), S.5(2)
J&K Cr. P. C: S.161, S.164A, S.342
RPC: S.161
J&K Cr. P. C: S.161, S.164A, S.342
RPC: S.161
Headnote
(A) J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2001 - Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) - Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification - For establishing guilt in corruption cases, the prosecution must prove initial demand of illegal gratification, voluntary acceptance of tainted money during trap proceedings, and recovery of said money (Paras 12).
(B) Trap Proceedings - Verification of demand - It is the duty of the Trap Laying Officer to conduct independent verification of the alleged demand to ascertain if the complainant bore any grudge against the accused; failure to do so has an adverse impact on the prosecution's case (Paras 19-22).
(C) Evidence of Trap Witness - Testimony of a bribe-giver is that of a partisan witness interested in the success of the trap and must be scrutinized carefully. Where there is evidence of previous enmity or discord and the testimony is uncorroborated, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction (Paras 27-30).
(D) Recovery of Money - Mere recovery of trap money is insufficient to prove criminal misconduct if the initial demand is not established and the accused provides a plausible explanation, such as the money being forcibly thrusted into the pocket (Para 31).
Facts of the case:
The appellant, Incharge Establishment in the BDO office, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs. 1800 as a bribe for preparing arrears bills. A trap was laid by the Vigilance Organization, and the money was recovered from the appellant's trouser pocket. However, the five associates of the complainant denied making any contributions or being asked for money. Evidence emerged of a land dispute and other discord between the complainant and the appellant, and the shadow witness failed to witness the actual transaction.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the initial demand of the bribe. The complainant's testimony was contradictory and uncorroborated, and the trial court's judgment was found to be perverse and inconsistent for convicting the appellant despite noting the lack of evidence regarding the demand.
Issues: Whether the conviction can be sustained based on an uncorroborated testimony of a biased complainant when the initial demand of the bribe was not proven and previous enmity existed.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the prosecution fails to prove the initial demand of a bribe, the subsequent trap proceedings lose significance. Conviction cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a partisan witness, especially when a plausible explanation for recovery is provided and evidence of enmity exists.
Result: Appellant acquitted.
(B) Trap Proceedings - Verification of demand - It is the duty of the Trap Laying Officer to conduct independent verification of the alleged demand to ascertain if the complainant bore any grudge against the accused; failure to do so has an adverse impact on the prosecution's case (Paras 19-22).
(C) Evidence of Trap Witness - Testimony of a bribe-giver is that of a partisan witness interested in the success of the trap and must be scrutinized carefully. Where there is evidence of previous enmity or discord and the testimony is uncorroborated, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction (Paras 27-30).
(D) Recovery of Money - Mere recovery of trap money is insufficient to prove criminal misconduct if the initial demand is not established and the accused provides a plausible explanation, such as the money being forcibly thrusted into the pocket (Para 31).
Facts of the case:
The appellant, Incharge Establishment in the BDO office, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs. 1800 as a bribe for preparing arrears bills. A trap was laid by the Vigilance Organization, and the money was recovered from the appellant's trouser pocket. However, the five associates of the complainant denied making any contributions or being asked for money. Evidence emerged of a land dispute and other discord between the complainant and the appellant, and the shadow witness failed to witness the actual transaction.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the initial demand of the bribe. The complainant's testimony was contradictory and uncorroborated, and the trial court's judgment was found to be perverse and inconsistent for convicting the appellant despite noting the lack of evidence regarding the demand.
Issues: Whether the conviction can be sustained based on an uncorroborated testimony of a biased complainant when the initial demand of the bribe was not proven and previous enmity existed.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the prosecution fails to prove the initial demand of a bribe, the subsequent trap proceedings lose significance. Conviction cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a partisan witness, especially when a plausible explanation for recovery is provided and evidence of enmity exists.
Result: Appellant acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gowhar Majeed Dalal
For the Respondents: Mohsin S. Qadiri, Faheem Nisar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gowhar Majeed Dalal
For the Respondents: Mohsin S. Qadiri, Faheem Nisar
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued statement under Section 342 J&K Cr.PC improperly recorded, prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance, and shadow witness did not support case. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Prosecution failed to prove initial demand of bribe; complainant's testimony unreliable due to contradictions and enmity; shadow witness did not witness transaction. (Para 13 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. For conviction under Section 5(1)(d) PC Act, prosecution must prove initial demand, demand and acceptance at trap, and recovery; uncorroborated testimony of interested witness can be relied upon if found truthful. (Para 12 , 27 , 28 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of charges; bail and surety bonds discharged. (Para 36 , 37 )
6. What are the essential ingredients for proving an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
The prosecution must establish: (i) initial demand of illegal gratification by accused from complainant; (ii) demand and voluntary acceptance of tainted money at trap; (iii) recovery of tainted money from accused. (Para 12 )
7. Can a conviction be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a complainant (bribe-giver) in a corruption case?
Yes, if the court is satisfied that the witness is a witness of truth. However, a trap witness is considered an interested witness, and his testimony must be analyzed and scrutinized carefully. (Para 27 , 28 )
8. What is the significance of a trap laying officer not verifying the initial demand of bribe before laying a trap?
The failure to independently verify the alleged demand before the trap is a significant omission that can adversely impact the prosecution's case, especially when there is evidence of prior enmity or discord between the complainant and accused. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
JUDGMENT
1) The present appeal is directed against judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Anantnag (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby the appellant has been convicted of offences under Section 5(1)(d) read Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act [for short “the PC Act”]. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.21,000/ in proof of offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
2) As per the prosecution case, on 10.09.2009, complainant-PW Bashir Ahmad Dar, lodged a written complaint before the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, alleging therein that he along with five other Helpers posted in Block Development Office, Larkipora Shahabad, Anantnag, were accorded in-situ promotion with effect from 01.11.2008. It was further alleged that the complainant approached the appellant/accused, who was working as Incharge Establishment in the office of BDO, in connection with preparation of arrears bill. It was also alleged that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.300 per head for preparation of arrears bill. The complainant is stated to have collected Rs.300 from each of the Helpers and collected an amount of Rs.1800/ from the Helpers that was demanded as bribe money by the appellant/accused. According to the complainant he was against the corruption, as such, he approached the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, for the purpose of taking strict action against the appellant.
3) On the basis of aforesaid complaint (EXTP-1), FIR No.25/2009 for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act and Section 161 of RPC came to be registered with Police Station Vigilance Organization, Kashmir (VOK) and investigation was commenced. A trap team comprising officers/officials of the VOK, which was headed by PW-14, Inspector Farooq Hussain Mir, was constituted for laying trap against the appellant/accused. Services of one independent witness, namely, PW-2, Nazir Ahmad Lone, Senior Assistant, Commercial Tax Department, Srinagar, were also requisitioned and he was associated with the trap proceedings. The complainant is stated to have produced 18 currency notes each of Rs.100/ denomination, total in the amount of Rs.1800/ before the members of the trap team.
4) After conducting pre-trap demonstration, the complainant along with other members of the trap team proceeded to Block Development Office, Larkipora Shahabad, Anantnag. On reaching there, the complainant went inside the office room of the appellant/accused and after a brief conversation, the appellant/accused is stated to have demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1800/ as illegal gratification from the complainant, whereafter he kept the same in the pocket of his trouser. This transaction of exchange of bribe money between the complainant and the appellant/accused was watched by independent witness, PW Nazir Ahmad Lone from the window of the room. After completion of the transaction, the complainant is stated to have flashed a pre-fixed signal to the members of the trap team who rushed to the spot and caught hold of the appellant/accused. Upon search of back pocket of the trouser of the appellant/accused, the tainted money was recovered from his possession which was seized on spot. Thereafter the appellant/accused was made to wash his hands in the solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. Similarly, the pocket of trouser of the appellant/accused was also washed in Sodium Carbonate solution and the same also turned pink. These solutions were put in bottles and the same were sealed on spot. Post trap memo was prepared and the appellant/accused was arrested on spot. The coloured solutions sealed and seized on spot were sent to FSL Srinagar after getting them rese
