Bombay HC: Witness deposing particular incident as per his statement read over to him by police short time before evidence, said evidence becomes inadmissible

In the light of above, very little value needs to be attached to the evidence of P.W. 3 Vishnu because he appears to have deposed the particular incident not by recollecting the evidence of that incident but what has been read out by him from the police statement, short time before he deposed. Under these circumstances, in the first place, entire evidence of this witness becomes inadmissible and even if it be held that it is admissible evidence, no value whatsoever can be attached to his evidence, which evidence even otherwise as already stated aforesaid does not appear to be convincing and is contrary to the evidence of complainant on the material aspect of demand and acceptance.

{Para 24}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1999

Decided On: 08.10.2014

Rustam Ukarda Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: 2016 ALL M R (Cri) 248,MANU/MH/3022/2014.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether Sanction authority must give sanction for prosecution if the work for which bribe was given had already completed?

 From above testimony of sanctioning authority, as pointed out, it is emerging that this authority has also received documents comprising of processed papers which were already dispatched to both, Passport Office at Pune as well as concerned police station. If this was admitted, then as pointed out, on the day of main trap dated 23rd December 2005, there was no work with accused and rather it was already processed and forwarded to the concerned office. If this was the situation, then, as rightly held by the trial court, this authority ought to have refused to accord sanction by noting that there was no motive or work of complainant to offer bribe or for accused to accept the same. Therefore, there are reason to hold that there is no complete application of mind to the entire documents received by this sanctioning authority. {Para 21}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2011 and Criminal Application No. 1151 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2011

Decided On: 11.03.2026

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Navnath Dipa Vetal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2382/2026,2026 NCBHC-AUG 10345.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Conviction of accused for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is not permissible if voice recording of trap was not played in the court at the time of evidence

 Now, turning towards the electronic evidence, it is to be noted that the said panchanama including the transcript of the dialogues exchanged is stated to have been prepared on the basis of what was heard from the voice recorder. No doubt, it appears that by taking out hash value the said voice recorder was sent to the forensic lab for analysis with the sample of the voice, but no efforts appears to have been taken by the prosecution to play that voice recorder or the CD prepared therefrom during the course of the testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5. Mere submission of the certificate will not absolve the prosecution from identifying the voice before the Court. The report of the forensic lab would be in the form of opinion of an expert and the concerned authority may come to a conclusion that the voice, which has been heard in both the devices, are of the same person. But it has to be concluded that, the said voice is of the accused and that can be done only before the trial Court. Therefore, taking into consideration all the abovesaid evidence, scanning thereof and the reasons aforesaid, it cannot be said that the offence was proved by the prosecution against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the point is answered in the negative. {Para 18}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2017

Decided On: 05.08.2022

Shobha Sonba Raut Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2022 ALLMR (Cri) 3199,MANU/MH/2655/2022.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether accused can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act if he was not the final authority in sanctioning the bill of informant?

 As noted earlier, the respondent was not the final authority in sanctioning the bill submitted by the PW-1. The respondent while performing his duty had already raised objections pertaining to the bill submitted by PW-1 and the said bills were forwarded to the Malwan office and therefore there was no reason for respondent even to demand bribe from PW-1. It appears that, as the respondent had raised objections in the bill submitted by the complainant (PW-1), he had grudge against the respondent about the same and therefore had every reason to plant tainted money on the person of respondent. The respondent was thus successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. {Para 8}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2012

Decided On: 23.10.2020

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shridhar Madhavrao Murti

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Gadkari, J.

Citation: 2021 ALLMR(Cri) 2829,MANU/MH/1777/2020.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Panch stating that accused demanded money by winking his eye,no corroboration by informant, acquittal of accused proper

This leads me to deal with the crucial point involved in the present Appeal i.e. demand made by the respondent for illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/-. Minute perusal of evidence of the informant (PW-1) would clearly reveal that, it is totally silent on the aspect of demand on 10th April 2006. The panch witness (PW-2) in his testimony though has stated that, the respondent by winking his eyes to the PW-1 indicated demand of bribe amount. The said version of PW-2 is not at all corroborated by the prime witness i.e. informant (PW-1). The evidence on record is also absolutely silent about verification of pre-trap demand by the respondent on 6th April 2006. {Para 5}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2012

Decided On: 23.10.2020

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shridhar Madhavrao Murti

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Gadkari, J.

Citation: 2021 ALLMR(Cri) 2829,MANU/MH/1777/2020.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Statutory presumption U/S 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can arise only after the prosecution proves the foundational fact of 'demand'

 The basic requirement of demand is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the charges for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the proof of demand of illegal gratification is absolutely necessary as it is sine qua non of the offence. If the prosecution fails to prove this demand of illegal gratification, the charge against the appellant therefore, for the aforesaid offences would fail. It is clearly established in several judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in MANU/SC/0250/2023 : 2023:INSC:245 : (2023) 18 SCC 251, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the possession of the accused without proof of demand would not establish the offence under under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. In absence of proof of demand and illegal gratification and use of corrupt or illegal means to obtain any valuable or pecuniary advantage, it cannot be said that the offence of taking bribe is proved. Thus, the proof of demand has been held to be indispensable ingredient. Therefore, failure on the part of prosecution to prove demand and illegal gratification, would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the appellant/accused would not entail his conviction for the said offences. {Para 14}

15. It is settled law that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the said Act can arise only after the prosecution proves the foundational fact of 'demand'. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2007

Decided On: 24.12.2025

Dadasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/9193/2025,AIROnline 2025 BOM 1595.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can acquit accused if complainant was of criminal background?

 The High Court also accepted the defence version made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and recorded the findings that the possibility of Phenolphthalein powder appearing on the hands of the Respondent-accused when he shook hands with the complainant cannot be ruled out. The High Court further took note of various subsequent developments that certain complaints were filed against him by the CBI having disproportionate assets. The complainant Naresh Kumar Kapoor was a man having a criminal background. He was involved in a murder case as well as in a case of sale of shares in bogus names. The High Court further observed that in case two views are possible, the view favouring the accused has to be given preference, thus gave the benefit of doubt to the Respondent accused and acquitted him.{Para 9}

10. Undoubtedly, the reasoning given by the High Court does not deserve to be accepted for the reason that even if the complainant had a criminal background, he can still be forced by the officer of the Income Tax Department to pay illegal gratification for not reopening the assessment of a particular year. The subsequent cases against the Respondent-accused for having disproportionate assets cannot be co-related with the incident of trap case. The incident in which the Respondent had been arrested for taking illegal gratification has to be examined on its own merit. 

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate prosecution case if genesis of the case is not disclosed correctly?

The case of the complainant was that on 1.6.1994 he went to the house of the Respondent-accused and after bargaining, agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the same day as part payment of the illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/-. He immediately went alongwith Raj Kumar Sharma (PW. 3), the shadow witness to Harish Kumar (PW. 12), DCP and the plan for trap was prepared and the trap was laid. Gurlebleen Singh (PW. 2), the Executive Magistrate has categorically stated that he had been directed by the Deputy Commissioner in writing on 31.5.1994 to join the trap party on 1.6.1994. Therefore, it is evident that in case the complainant himself had gone to Harish Kumar (PW. 12) for having a trap on 1.6.1994, the question of receiving a direction from the Deputy Commissioner on 31.5.1994 could not arise. Gurlebleen Singh (PW. 2) is a witness only of recovery and not of accepting the bribe money. This statement alone made it evident that the prosecution has not disclosed the genesis of the case correctly.

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368.

Red full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court lays down guidelines for appreciating prosecution case in the case of prevention of Corruption Act

The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act 1988. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. {Para 7}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368

Print Page

SC Clarifies: Failure Of Conspiracy Charge Does Not Erase Individual Guilt In Bribery Traps

As rightly observed by the High Court, there was neither proof of demand nor acceptance by A1 but for the statement of PW1 that A2 demanded the bribe on behalf of A1. There can be no reliance placed on such statement made by the co-Accused and there can be no conviction entered into on that account. We are, however, inclined and persuaded to set aside the acquittal against A2 and restore the order of the Trial Court convicting him for the offence Under Section 7 of the PC Act; there being no conspiracy Under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code established.{Para 30}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. ... of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12486 of 2025)

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Baljeet Singh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Vinod Chandran and P.V. Sanjay Kumar, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 221,MANU/SC/0220/2026

 Decided On: 10.03.2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances failure to produce tainted currency notes is not fatal to prosecution case under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

 Evidence Act, 1872 – Production of Material Objects – Tainted Currency Notes – The appellant argued that the failure to produce tainted currency notes before the Court was fatal to the prosecution - Supreme Court dismissed this contention as it was raised for the first time during oral arguments at the Supreme Court and was never pleaded in the Trial Court, High Court, or the Special Leave Petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2013

Decided On: 13.03.2026

Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 239, MANU/SC/0228/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether a Shadow witness can be treated as interested witness if he is acquainted with complainant?

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) – Illegal Gratification – Trap Proceedings – Evidentiary Value of Shadow Witness – Credibility of Independent Witnesses – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an Excise Constable caught in a trap for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹500 - held that the testimony of a shadow witness (PW-2) cannot be branded as "interested" merely because they are acquainted with the complainant - To disqualify a witness as interested, the defense must provide specific material demonstrating actual hostility.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2013

Decided On: 13.03.2026

Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 239, MANU/SC/0228/2026.

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 86)

Q :-  Whether Sanction for all offences  under corruption  act is required , for which offences  sanction is not required? How sanction for prosecution in proved in cases under prevention of corruption act

Ans:- 1) Is sanction required for all PC Act offences?

No. Sanction under Section 19 PC Act is required only when the accused is a “public servant” and the court is taking cognizance of specified PC Act offences (bribery/criminal misconduct etc.) and the person is still covered as a public servant at the relevant time.

2) For which situations/offences sanction is not required?

Print Page

When a Corruption Trap Fails: Can the Special Judge Still Grant Police Custody in a Section 7 PC Act Case?

A complainant approaches the Anti-Corruption Bureau with a familiar grievance: a public servanthas demanded illegal gratification. The ACB verifies the demand. A trap is planned. The complainant is prepared. The officers wait. But when the crucial moment arrives, the accused refuses to accept the money. No tainted currency is recovered. No hand-wash turns positive. The trap fails.Even so, the accused is arrested and the ACB seeks police custody remand.At that stage, the Special Judge must not be guided by the disappointment of the failed trap, but by the discipline of law. The real question is not whether suspicion exists. The real question is whether, in an offence punishable up to seven years, the arrest was lawful under Section 35 of the BNSS and whether police custody is truly necessary for investigation.

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 94)

Q :- explain me procedure  of raid under  prevention of corruption  Act? 

Ans:-  A “raid” under the Prevention of Corruption Act is usually a trap/raid for bribe (Sections 7/8/12 PC Act) conducted by ACB/CBI, and the procedure is essentially the standard trap protocol plus statutory requirements on investigation and sanction.

Trap/Raid procedure (stepwise)

1. Complaint & verification

Print Page

“Shielding the Dishonest?” – Supreme Court Split Verdict on Section 17A PC Act in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India

 

• Case title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India​

• Case No.: W.P. (Civil) No. 1373 of 2018 

• Dated: JANUARY 13, 2026​

• Court: Supreme Court of India​

• Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan​

• Provision under challenge: Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)[​

• Result: Split verdict – Justice Nagarathna held Section 17A unconstitutional; Justice Viswanathan upheld it with a reinterpretation.​

Background: What Section 17A Requires

Print Page

Supreme Court: S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Won't Apply To Cases Of Demand Of Illegal Gratification

 The entire submission of the learned counsel is thoroughly

misconceived. Section 17-A came to be enacted with a particular

object. Section 17-A talks about enquiry or inquiry or

investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or

decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions

or duties. Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be

applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification. {Para 7}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.1010-1011 OF 2026

ANIL DAIMA ETC. Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 

Citation: 2026 INSC 72

Date: 19TH JANUARY, 2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are parameters for deciding anticipatory bail application under Prevention of Corruption Act for attempt to obtain bribe?

 Further it is seen that, Section 7 speaks of the "attempt" to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence Under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word "attempt" is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms. {Para 12}

It is urged on his behalf that the facts found do not constitute an attempt to obtain the dusturi. With this argument we are unable to agree. It appears to us that the attempt was complete when the demand was made; there was nothing further for the Petitioner to do to complete his attempt. He made the request, and it lay with the person from whom he demanded the money to comply with the request or not. We are in complete agreement with the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Pearson in Empress of India v. Baldeo Sahai [  MANU/UP/0035/1879 : (1879) I.L.R. 2 All 253] where that learned Judge lays down that to ask for a bribe is an attempt to obtain one.

21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the Petitioner Accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3247 of 2025 +

Decided On: 03.03.2025

Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Citation: 2025 INSC 320, MANU/SC/0309/2025

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether prosecution must prove sanction for prosecution even though advocate for accused has admitted it?

 The defence has admitted the sanction to prosecute the appellant. However, even though the sanction order passed by the sanctioning authority to prosecute the appellant is admitted, the prosecution is still duty-bound to prove that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind while according sanction. It is against the safeguard of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and also against Section 19 of the PC Act. Even though the said sanction order has been admitted by the defence, it is well established that an Advocate appearing for the accused has no authority to admit any document contrary to the interest of the accused. Advocate is not appointed to give admission on behalf of accused contrary to law. As per provision of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section 53 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, though there is admission of fact, the Court may require proof of it. The prosecution in such case is duty-bound prove a mandatory requirement of Section 19 that sanctioning authority applied mind while according sanction and such admission of document is not substitute to it. Mere admitting the document is not sufficient and proving the fact that the mind was applied by the sanctioning authority while according sanction, is mandatory requirement of law. Such admission does not dispense with proof. It must be fulfilled. In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the sanctioning authority applied its mind and then accorded the sanction to prosecute the appellant. Thus, sanction to prosecute the appellant is not proved. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2018

Decided On: 05.12.2025

Sharad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/9292/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Can State Police Investigate a Central Government Official for the offences Under Prevention of Corruption Act?

 

1.0 Introduction: Challenging a Common Assumption

It’s a widely held belief that any allegation of corruption against a Central Government employee falls squarely within the jurisdiction of a central agency, most notably the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The idea that a state-level Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) could take up such a case seems, to many, counterintuitive or even legally incorrect.

This very assumption was recently put to the test and decisively settled by the Supreme Court of India. In the landmark case of Nawal Kishore Meena vs State of Rajasthan, the court delivered a judgment that clarifies the powers of state and central agencies in the fight against corruption. This article will break down the most surprising and impactful takeaways from this crucial ruling, which reaffirms that no public servant is beyond the reach of the law based on a jurisdictional technicality.

Print Page