PC Act | Public Servant's Demand Of Bribe Ought To Be Verified Before Initiating Trap Proceedings: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the public servant cannot be held guilty of accepting a bribe unless the prosecution has established the demand of a bribe and its subsequent acceptance by the public servant.

The Court said that when a trap is laid down to catch the public servant red-handed for accepting bribe, then the factum of demand of bribe by the public servant ought to be verified by the investigating officer. The Court added the prosecution's case would turn fatal owing to not proving the demand of bribe by the public servant.

The court added that the factum of demand for a bribe can also be verified by recording the telephonic conversation between the decoy (person who offers a bribe in a trap proceedings) and the suspect public servant.

“It is the settled convention in such cases that the Trap Laying Officer makes efforts to verify the factum of demand of bribe by the public servant before initiating the trap proceedings. The factum of demand of bribe can also be verified by recording the telephonic conversation between the decoy and the suspect public servant. Often, a recording device is secretly placed on the person of the decoy to record the conversation which would transpire during the course of acceptance of bribe by the public servant.”, the Court said.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta acquitted the public servant on a charge of accepting an illegal gratification, being punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after the Trap Laying Officer didn't verify the factum of demand of bribe by the public servant.

The court gave the benefit of the doubt to the public servant as the prosecution was not able to prove the accusation beyond the reasonable doubt as the factum of demand of bribe was not verified by the investigating officer nor was the effort put in by the investigating officer to disassociate with the shadow witness (relative of decoy), who was asked to oversee and overhear the transaction of acceptance of illegal gratification.

Thus, the prosecution case failed on two counts:

i. The factum of demand for a bribe was not verified by the public servant before registering a case against him,

ii. Despite knowing the fact, that the shadow witness was an interested witness because of being a relative of a decoy, the investigating officer didn't disassociate with him and rather asked him to oversee and hear the transaction of acceptance of bribe.

The judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta drew reference from the Constitution Bench Judgment of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029, wherein it was held that mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification, without establishing the offer made by the bribe giver or demand raised by the public servant, would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d)(i) or Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

In Neeraj Dutta's case, the court has clarified that the prosecution ought to prove the offer made by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant as a fact in issue to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant-public servant of charges framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Singh, Adv. Ms. Nisha, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Munjal, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR

Case Details: MIR MUSTAFA ALI HASMI VERSUS THE STATE OF A.P., SLP (Crl.) No(s). 9091/2022

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Click here to read/download the judgment