1. Appeal against conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting bribe for license renewal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10257
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
P SOMARAJU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-001770-001770 - 2014
Advocates:
Petitioner's Advocate: Y. RAJA GOPALA RAO
Respondent's Advocate: DEVINA SEHGAL
Petitioner's Advocate: Y. RAJA GOPALA RAO
Respondent's Advocate: DEVINA SEHGAL
Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appellate courts must not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable views are possible, upholding the double presumption of innocence unless the Trial Court's finding is perverse.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Demand and Acceptance of bribe - Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to prove guilt; mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe (Paras 18, 19) - Statutory presumption under Section 20 is not automatic and arises only once foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved (Para 18).
(B) Criminal Appeal - Scope of interference with order of acquittal - Appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence, but must bear in mind the double presumption in favour of the accused: the fundamental presumption of innocence and the reinforcement of that presumption by the trial court (Paras 11, 12) - If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal (Para 11) - Intervention is warranted only where the Trial Court’s view is perverse, based on misreading of material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice (Para 12).
(C) Evidence - Trap proceedings and reliability - Negative result of sodium carbonate solution (hand-wash test) and the failure of the prosecution to ensure the independent witness observed the transaction cast serious doubt on the prosecution version (Paras 17, 21) - Testimonies of natural witnesses who provide mutually consistent accounts supporting the defense cannot be discarded solely because they interacted with the accused in an official or professional capacity (Paras 29, 30).
Facts of the case:
A public servant was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe for the renewal of contract labor licenses. During a trap operation, tainted currency was recovered from the accused's table drawer. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, noting inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, the negative result of the hand-wash test, the fact that the independent witness was kept outside the office during the transaction, and evidence that the accused was briefly absent from the room when the money was placed. The High Court reversed this acquittal and convicted the accused.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erroneously attributed wrongful intent to the accused based on a negative hand-wash test and failed to address critical evidentiary gaps, such as the complainant's inconsistent statements and the lack of corroboration by the independent witness. The court found that the defense witnesses provided a plausible and consistent account of the accused's absence during the planting of the money. Furthermore, the High Court's views on the statutory scheme of license renewal and the accused's authority to inspect registers were found to be unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal and whether the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the demand for illegal gratification was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the mere recovery of money from the drawer was insufficient for conviction. Given that the Trial Court's view was reasonable and supported by the evidence, the High Court's substitution of its own inferences without addressing the identified evidentiary gaps was unjustified. The double presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal must be upheld unless the lower court's decision is perverse.
Result: Appeal allowed. Order of acquittal restored.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
- bribery
-
practice and procedure
-
appeals
- appeal against acquittal
-
evidence
- burden of proof
- presumption
- witness credibility
-
criminal procedure
- trap proceedings
-
appeals
Table of Contents
2025 INSC 1263 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1770 OF 2014 P. SOMARAJU …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. This Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 08.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1540 of 2004. By way of the impugned judgment, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in Calendar Case No. 13 of 1999. The appellant, who was the accused before the Trial Court, was thereby convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [Digitally signed by] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous Signature i N m ot Ve p rifie r d isonment for one year with a fine of ₹10,000/- on each count.
NISHA KHULBEY Date: 2025.10.28 Reason:
2. The facts leading to the instant Appeal may be described briefly. The appellant was an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle I, at Anjaiah Karmica Bhavan, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad from 01.01.1996 to 26.09.1996. The complainant, S. Venkat Reddy (PW-1) was a licensed Labour Contractor who had been operating two establishments, Swetha Enterprises and Sindhu Enterprises, for many years. In June 1997, the complainant made an application to the appellant in connection with the renewal of contract labour licenses for the aforementioned establishments for the year 1997-1998 and also paid the necessary fees, including a late application fee for one of the establishments, of total ₹250/-. The appellant allegedly verified and signed the registers produced by the complainant but he kept postponing the renewal of the licenses on some pretext or the other. The nephew of the complainant, S. Prabhakar Reddy (PW- 3), had also sought renewal of license for his firm, Tirumala Enterprises, and similarly states that he met the appellant twice or thrice along with the complainant to renew his license, but after some delay, entrusted the matter to the complainant.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.1997, the complainant went to meet the appellant in the evening. At that meeting, the appellant demanded a sum of ₹9,000/- as bribe for renewing the three licenses, failing which he would keep the renewals pending. Allegedly, a part payment of ₹3,000/- was made by the complainant on that day itself by placing the money in the appellant’s table- drawer and the remaining amount of ₹6,000/- was demanded to be paid within one to two days. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau2 around 11:00 AM the next day and presented a written complaint against the appellant (Ex. P1) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, [For short, ‘DSP’] of ACB, U.V.S. Raju (PW-7). The DSP asked the complainant to bring the balance bribe amount in ₹100/- denominations by 2:00-2:30 PM.
4. The DSP allegedly made some enquiries and found out that the reputation of the appellant was not good. An FIR was registered around 1:00 PM. The DSP also sent a requisition for two mediators. When the complainant returned with the money, he was introduced to two Government employees: (i) P. N. Rajender (PW-2), Office Superintendent in the Directorate of Insurance and Medical Services, Hyderabad; and (ii) B. Balaji Rao, Junior Assistant, Directorate of Insurance and Medical Services, Hyderabad. They were to be the mediators in the trap proceedings. The complaint was handed over to them with instructions to verify their contents. The mediators did so and further noted down the numbers of the notes brought by the complainant in Annexure I to the pre-trap mediators’ report (Ex. P2). A constable (PC 490, Sri Kistappa) applied phenolphthalein powder to the notes and then kept them in the complainant’s shirt-pocket. The DSP instructed the complainant not to touch the no
