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

Whether offence of criminal misappropriation of property is made out when property is not entrusted to accused?

Criminal - Illegal gratification - Sections 147 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 368 of Cochin Penal Code - Appellant and accused No. 2 were joint receivers of textile business - Appellant charged for receiving large sums of money by way of illegal gratification as motive and reward for allotting cloth bales produced in mills - Appellant charged for offence under Section 147 for accepting illegal gratification and for offence under Section 389 for criminal breach of trust and also for abetment and entering into conspiracy for commission of these offences - Appellant and his co-accused acquitted by Special Magistrate who made Order of acquittal in favour of them - On appeal High Court set aside Order of acquittal made in favour of appellant - Hence, present appeal - Appellant contended that High Court reversed Order of acquittal made by Trial Court without adverting to or displacing main grounds upon which decision of Trial Judge rested - Further contended that offence committed by appellant cannot constitute breach of trust though it may amount to taking of illegal gratification - Charge nowhere indicates that the offence consisted in wrongful use or disposal of these goods in violation or any direction of law and it was not stated also what these directions of law were - Held, appellant cannot be convicted for offence of breach of trust - Order of High court set aside - Appeal allowed

The learned Advocate-General appearing for the State Government saw the difficulty in the way of establishing that there was any entrustment with the accused in respect of the sum of Rs. 23,100 paid to him by P. W. 1. He tried to get round this difficulty by saying that it could be held on the facts of this case that the entrustment with the accused was in respect of the goods of the mills and the criminal breach of trust consisted in disposing of the goods contrary to the directions of the court and misappropriating the sale proceeds. It is not necessary to enter into the merits of this argument for the simple reason that this was not the charge upon which the accused was tried.

The subject of criminal breach of trust, as stated in the charge, was a sum of Rs. 23,100 and the definite allegation against the accused was that he and his co-receiver functioning as public servants neither remitted this amount to the credit of the company, nor brought it to the company's accounts, but dishonestly misappropriated the same with the intention of causing illegal loss to the company and illegal gain to themselves. No doubt the charge, which we have set out in the beginning, refers to the two accused having custody of the company's goods, but the charge nowhere indicates that the offence consisted in wrongful use or disposal of these goods in violation or any direction of law, and it was not stated also what these directions of law were.

Supreme Court of India

Chelloor Mankkal Narayan ... vs State Of Travancore-Cochin on 10 November, 1952

Bench: M. Patanjali Cji, B. K. Mukherjea, S. R. Das, V. Bose, G. Hassan

 Citation: AIR1953SC478, 1953()KLT173(SC),1954 CRLJ102 

Print Page

Whether accused can be convicted for corruption if prosecution fails to prove that he demanded bribe?

 It is 
settled   legal   position   that   unless   the   evidence   of   the   demand   is 
satisfactory, the evidence obtained by laying a trap is required to be 
viewed cautiously.   It would be necessary for the prosecution in such 
cases to prove that it was as a result of 'demand' that the money was 
passed on.  In this case, the evidence of the acceptance of the money by 
itself, is not sufficient to raise the inference about there  having had a 
previous demand of illegal gratification.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.346 OF 2005
Shri Balkrishna Bhau Desai

Versus
The State of Maharashtra

  
­­­
CORAM :   ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATED  :    23rd APRIL, 2015
­­­

Print Page

What are essential condition for proving offence under prevention of corruption Act?

 It is a settled principle in law laid down by this Court in a number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence then conviction must follow Under Section 7 ibid against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are sine qua non for proving the offence Under Section 7 ibid. (See-C.M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh [MANU/SC/0981/2010(2010) 15 SCC 1].
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.593 OF 2012
L. Laxmikanta V State by Superintendent of Police,

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Dated;February 5, 2015.

Print Page