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

Delhi HC: Sanction under S 17A of The Prevention of Corruption Act is not required in Trap cases

 In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Santosh Karnani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427. In this case respondent no. 1 therein, an IRS officer, was involved in case of illegal gratification, the Apex Court dealt with Section 17A of the PC Act and held as under:—

33. The contention that prior approval of investigation, as mandated under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been obtained and thus, the proceedings initiated against Respondent No. 1 stand vitiated, has no legal or factual basis. Section 17A merely contemplates that police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority. The first proviso to the section states that such approval is not necessary in cases involving arrest of the person on the spot on the charges of accepting undue advantage.

34. As may be seen, the first proviso to Section 17A refers to cases wherein a public servant is charged with acceptance of an undue advantage or attempt thereof. A prior approval or sanction to investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very purpose of trap and the investigation, which is not the underlying intention of the legislature. The investigation against Respondent No. 1, being an accused of demanding a bribe, did not require any previous approval of the Central Government. That apart, the accusation against Respondent No. 1 does not revolve around any recommendations made or decisions taken by him in his quasi-judicial or administrative capacity.{Para 39}

 In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Shalinder Kaur, J.)

Arun Kumar Jindal Vs Central Bereau of Investigation 

Bail Appln. 1705/2025 and CRL.M.A. 13567/2025

Decided on May 9, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether junior officer can be convicted under prevention of Corruption Act on allegation that he has accepted bribe on behalf of senior officer?

 We have considered the submissions and perused the
materials on record. P.W.2 was desirous for transfer of the
electric connection on the land in question in his own name to
facilitate a subsidy of Rs.625/every
six months. The village
administrative officer was required to sign the necessary
documents for the purpose. P.W.2 lodged a written complaint on
17.12.2003 against the village administrative officer alone for
having demanded a sum of Rs.600/as
illegal gratification for the
purpose. P.W.2 lodged a written report regarding the same.
Necessary mazhar was prepared. The appellants were village
assistants in the office of the village administrative officer. The
village administrative officer came to the office along with accused
no.3 while accused no.2 waited at the office for both of them. The
money was handed over to accused no.2 on the instructions of
the village administrative officer. The significance of accused no.2
counting the money before handing it over to accused no.3 who

put it in his shirt pocket, lay in the confirmation that the amount
was in consonance with the demand, of which naturally the
appellants were therefore aware of. It was only after the money as
demanded was paid that accused no.3 filled up the form for
transfer of the electric connection in the name of P.W.2 and
placed it before the village administrative officer who then signed
and put his seal on the same. At this moment, they were
apprehended. The money was handed over to the trap officials by
the village administrative officer after taking it back from accused
no.3. Their hands were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution,
including the shirt of the third accused, leading to change of
colour of the solution confirming that they were the same notes
which were given to P.W.2 by the trap officials.
6. P.W.1 proved the sanction for the prosecution. The mere
absence of any specific statement by P.W.2 and the trap witness
P.W.4 of any demand and acceptance by the appellants,
attributing the same only to the village administrative officer can
be of no avail to the appellants. P.W.10, Inspector Crime Branch
proved the trap proceedings and recovery. The defence of the

appellants that they had received the money in the bonafide belief
that it was towards arrears of land tax is belied by the fact that
land tax for the period in question had already been cancelled by
the State Government. The taking of a false defence is a further
aggravating circumstance against the appellants. The second
contention that it is improbable that a demand of Rs.600/would
have been made for a subsidy benefit of Rs.625/only,
ignores
the fact that it entitled P.W.2 for a subsidy of Rs.625/every
six
months. Evidently the appellants were in league with the village
administrative officer.
7. The contention that there was no demand or acceptance by
the appellants or that it was in a bonafide belief merits no
consideration. The prosecution was therefore able to establish a
prima facie case against the appellants. Section 20 of the Act
provides that if an accused public servant has accepted or
obtained for himself or for any other person any undue advantage
from any person, there shall be a presumption unless the
contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained that undue
advantage as a motive of reward for performance of a public duty

improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public
servant. The acquittal of the appellants under Section 7 of the
Act, in our opinion in the facts of the present case, is
inconsequential and cannot negate the presumption drawn
against them. The fact that P.W.2 in his chief may not have
named accused no.2 is considered inconsequential.
8. In Virendranath (supra), the venue for payment of the
illegal gratification was at a restaurant. The illegal gratification on
directions of the prime accused was handed over to the owner of
the restaurant. The acquittal of the restaurant owner by this
Court was based on an entirely different reason which has no
application to the facts of the present case. We consider it
appropriate to set out the same below:
“5. Insofar as A2
is concerned, we find
considerable merit in the contention raised on
his behalf that he could have received the money
innocently from the complainant at the asking of
A1,
without realising that it was bribe money.
The argument prevails because the prosecution
has nowhere led any other evidence of conduct
or consistency of a behaviour from which it could
be spelt out that A2
was a habitual gobetween
in facilitating acceptance of bribe by A1.
This
single instance which has been brought forth
does not reveal of any regularity of conduct of

this nature. There thus exists an area of doubt,
the benefit of which shall go to A2.
Accordingly,
the appeal of A2
is allowed and he is acquitted
of the charges.”
9. In T. Shankar Prasad (supra), the prime accused directed
the money to be handed over to the coaccused
when both of
them were caught on the spot and the money recovered from the
coaccused.
The coaccused
took the plea that there was no proof
of demand and acceptance against him. A similar defence was
taken that he had accepted the same in the bonafide belief
towards advance tax. Referring to Section 20 of the Act, noticing
that there was no material towards any advance tax liability, it
was observed:
“24. ….An overall consideration of the materials
sufficiently substantiates, in the case on hand, the
prevalence of a system and methodology cleverly
adopted by the accused that the demand will be
specified when both the accused were present and
thereafter as and when A1
puts his signature the
party has to meet A2
at his seat for fixing the seal
and making entry in the register to make the
process complete only after collecting the amount
already specified by A1
in A2’
s presence. The
involvement of both of them in a wellplanned
and
cleverly managed device to systematically collect
money stood sufficiently established on the
evidence let in by the prosecution. Further, A2
did

not offer his explanation immediately after the
recovery of money. A similar plea of receiving
money as advance tax was rejected and affirmed by
this Court in A. Abdul Kaffar v. State of Kerala. It
was noted that such a stand was not taken at the
firstavailable
opportunity and the defence was not
genuine. 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1208 OF 2019

GURUVIAH  Vs  THE STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Dated:AUGUST 20, 2019.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of Govt panch witnesses in Trap case under prevention of corruption of Act?

Thus, the important witnesses are PW-1-the complainant, PWs-2 and 3 panchas and PW-5 Investigation Officer. Sofar as evidence of PW-1 complainant is concerned, he is treated as hostile witness since he has not supported his own case. Though he has spoken about the contents of the complaint to some extent here and there, that will take us nowhere near the charges levelled against the accused.

Of-course, PWs-2 and 3 have supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. But the fact remains that both of them were Government servants working in the Department of Minor Irrigation. On the requisition of PW-5 Police Inspector, Lokayukta police station, they were deputed by the Executive Engineer to go to the police station and co-operate. Since they were Government Servants, they will have to support the case of the prosecution. If, for any reason, they turn hostile, they will have to face the consequences by way of disciplinary proceedings against them. Therefore, their evidence has to be considered and appreciated with reference to the evidence given by the complainant PW-1 and in the light of the fact that the panchas were the Government Servants. When the complainant went to the extent of deposing that he has not at all lodged the complaint and that the accused neither demanded nor accepted bribe money from him nor the accused was trapped, it is rather difficult to believe the evidence of PWs-2 and 3 to come to the conclusion that the accused demanded and accepted bribe money from the complainant.

Equivalent Citation: 2015(5)KarLJ435,2015(4) crimes 376 Karnat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Crl. A. No. 165 of 2010

Decided On: 09.07.2015

S.R. Chowdaiah Vs. The State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:P.D. Waingankar, J.

Print Page