Bribe Conviction Cannot Stand Without Proof of Demand, Acceptance and Conspiracy: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in PC Act Case

Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K. Gaba Etc.

Citation: 2026 INSC 568

Date of Judgment/Order: May 27, 2026

Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court held that in corruption cases under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification is indispensable, and mere recovery of money or presence of accused officers at the place of occurrence cannot sustain a conviction. The Court further held that criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC cannot be inferred merely from association, presence, or suspicion; there must be cogent evidence showing a meeting of minds and shared criminal intent. Since the prosecution failed to prove demand, acceptance, and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, and had also withheld material evidence such as the alleged tape-recorded conversation, the High Court’s acquittal was a possible and lawful view which did not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Summary: The case arose from allegations that Central Excise officers demanded INR 80,000 as illegal gratification for returning seized factory records of M/s Amoli Ceraplast Ltd. The Trial Court convicted certain accused officers under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the High Court reappreciated the evidence and acquitted them. Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that the respondents were part of the conspiracy and that the recovery of bribe money supported the prosecution case. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the complainant, independent witnesses, and other material witnesses did not support the prosecution in material particulars; the foundational facts of demand and acceptance were not proved; the alleged tape recorder containing the conversation was not produced; and the evidence did not establish any prior agreement or meeting of minds among the accused. The Court reiterated that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only after proof of demand and that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and upheld the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, acquitting the respondents. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance, and criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, and that the High Court’s view was neither perverse nor contrary to law. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.