Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Tuesday (October 28) acquitted a former Assistant Labour Commissioner accused of demanding and accepting a ₹3,000 bribe for renewal of contract labour licences. The Bench set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment that had reversed a reasoned order of acquittal passed by the trial court, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. Finding that the case was fraught with inconsistencies and relied solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, the Court restored the trial court’s acquittal and directed that the appellant’s bail bonds be discharged.

The case concerned a former Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who served in Circle I, Hyderabad, and was accused of demanding and accepting a ₹3,000 bribe from a licensed labour contractor for the renewal of three contract labour licences. The prosecution alleged that on September 25, 1997, the accused demanded ₹9,000 as illegal gratification, of which ₹3,000 was allegedly paid that evening. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau the next day, and a trap was arranged. During the operation, the complainant claimed to have placed the tainted notes in the drawer of the accused’s table at his instance. The sodium carbonate hand-wash test conducted on the accused showed no colour change, but the drawer lining tested positive.

Also Read: IBC | Preference Share Holders Are Investors, Not ‘Financial Creditors’; Non-Redemption Not a ‘Default’ : Supreme Court

The prosecution relied on the complainant’s statement, the trap proceedings, and supporting depositions of witnesses from the ACB. The defence contended that the complainant had planted the money while the accused was briefly away from his seat. Two defence witnesses, a union president and an advocate, supported this version, stating they saw the complainant alone in the office chamber when the accused was away. The trial court found inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court later reversed this acquittal, holding that the negative hand-wash test did not negate the possibility of bribe acceptance, and convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s interference with the acquittal was justified under the principles governing appellate review of acquittal orders.

The Bench observed that “an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited.”

Referring to Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, the Court stated that an appellate court may interfere only when the trial court’s finding is “perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice.”

The Bench recorded that the trial court had acquitted the accused after considering several factors, including discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony, inconsistencies in the complaint, absence of corroborating independent evidence, and the negative result of the hand-wash test. It noted that “the sole basis of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance is the narration of the complainant, a close scrutiny of which reveals serious infirmities.”

It further observed that “the complainant has no proof other than his own oral statement that he visited the appellant on 25.09.1997, wherein the appellant allegedly made his first demand for a bribe.” The Court stated that “the complainant directed the mediator to remain outside the office during the crucial half-hour in which the alleged demand and acceptance occurred,” which created a critical gap in the prosecution’s version.

On the evidence of the defence witnesses, the Bench recorded that “both DWs support the defence version” and that their testimonies were “mutually consistent and directly supported the explanation that the complainant took advantage of the appellant’s brief absence to place the tainted notes in the drawer.” The Court found that the High Court “completely discounted the testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 by stating that they would have appeared before the appellant in official capacity and thus might be inclined to oblige him. We find no merit in this reasoning.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court: Builder Liable to Pay Interest Till Lawful Possession — Conditional Occupation Certificate Doesn’t End RERA Liability

The Bench finally stated, “the Trial Court’s view was both reasonable and firmly rooted in the evidence on record. The acquittal was based on careful evaluation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse or unsustainable. The High Court did not demonstrate any compelling reason to depart from that view.”

“The impugned judgment and order dated 08.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.1540 of 2004 is set aside, and the order of acquittal dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad in Calendar Case No. 13 of 1999 is restored. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Basant R, Sr. Adv. Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. Kavinesh Rm, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Ojha, Adv.

Case Title: P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1263
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2014
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi