The Supreme Court has acquitted a public servant in an over two-decade-old corruption case filed after a trap was laid over an alleged bribery demand, while flagging the "serious lacuna and impatience" of the CBI in the investigation.
The top court, which delivered its verdict on his appeals challenging the May 2024 orders of the Kerala High Court that had affirmed his conviction and sentence by a special trial court, noted that "the trap was not permitted to run its full course" and the CBI could not prove that the recovered "bribe" money was meant for him.
It was alleged that the appellant, while serving as the Divisional Security Commissioner of Railway Protection Force, had abused his official position by demanding and obtaining illegal gratification through subordinate officials acting as intermediaries from RPF personnel seeking transfers, postings and other service-related benefits.
The investigation culminated in the filing of multiple final reports and institution of several prosecutions founded on distinct alleged transactions of illegal gratification.
Court questions speed of investigation
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh said there were elements of doubt in the manner the trap was executed in the case.
The bench noted that the complainant apparently informed the CBI on August 3, 2005, about the alleged bribe demanded by the appellant and the probe agency decided to lay a trap the very next day.
It said an FIR was lodged on August 4, 2005 and the trap was executed on the same day.
"It is surprising that the CBI started the investigation of a cognizable offence by way of verifying the complaint of bribery even before the formal FIR was lodged. It is also noticed that the CBI arranged the two independent trap witnesses at a very short period of time before the execution of the trap," the bench said in its verdict delivered on September 16.
It said that while the investigating agency cannot be faulted for organising the trap in such an "extraordinarily speedy manner", it can raise certain doubts about it.
‘Serious lacuna’ in CBI probe
The bench noted that the trial court had brushed aside the doubts raised by the appellant.
"Keeping into consideration the observations made by the trial court in para 150 of its judgment as reproduced above, we are of the view that there are certainly elements of doubt in the manner the trap was executed, which the trial court ignored. The lapses noted by the trial court, in our opinion, raise reasonable doubt on the prosecution case," it said.
It noted that on being informed that the appellant was demanding a bribe, the CBI decided to lay the trap for him.
"It is relevant to consider the reason the trap was not permitted to run its full course as against the appellant," the bench said, adding, if the money was ultimately meant to reach the appellant, the probe agency ought to have kept a watch on him and not merely on the person, who was later examined as an approver prosecution witness during the trial.
It said had the investigating agency allowed that chain to complete, the resulting evidence would have spoken far more directly to the appellant's culpability than the recovery actually effected.
"This is a serious lacuna and impatience of the CBI in the investigation conducted by it would enure to the benefit of the appellant," it said.
Supreme Court explains bribery case standard
The bench said the jurisprudence governing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act has evolved on the fundamental premise that criminality does not arise merely because money changes hands.
"What the prosecution is required to establish is that the public servant demanded, accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for performing, forbearing or facilitating an official act. Consequently, proof of demand and acceptance occupies a position of central importance in prosecutions under the Act," it said.
The bench said in view of the "lingering reasonable doubts", the charge against the appellant could not be said to have been proved with certain element of definitiveness as contemplated under the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
While allowing the two appeals, the top court acquitted the appellant of all charges in these cases.