trap case - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court on Trap Cases: Criminal Trial Can Proceed Despite Departmental Exoneration

30Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Trap Cases: Criminal Trial Can Proceed Despite Departmental Exoneration

The Supreme Court held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar continuation of criminal prosecution, as the standards of proof and purpose differ. However, it remanded the case to the trial court to determine the validity of the prosecution sanction, emphasizing that sanction must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, T. Manjunath, a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles in Bengaluru, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹15,000 through an intermediary. Following a trap by the Lokayukta, a criminal case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Transport Commissioner granted sanction for prosecution, and a chargesheet was filed. The appellant sought dischar...

“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case

The Supreme Court reiterated the established principle that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse or based on a manifest misreading of evidence. The prosecution must prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was accused of demanding a bribe of ₹9,000 from a labour contractor for renewing three licences. The prosecution alleged that a partial payment of ₹3,000 was made on 25.09.1997, with the balance demanded the next day. The complainant reported this to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which laid a trap on 26.09.1997. ...

Supreme Court Acquits Village Assistant: Merely Accepting Bribe Isn’t Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the main accused under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proven. However, the conviction of the co-accused was set aside due to the absence of a specific charge of abetment and lack of evidence proving his connivance or independent demand for the bribe. Facts Of The Case: The case involved two government officials, A. Karunanithi (A-1), the Village Administrative Officer, and P. Karunanithi (A-2), the Village Assistant. The complainant approached A-1 to obtain a necessary community certificate for a government job. On two separate occasions, A-1 demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant to process the application. The complainant subsequently lodged a formal...