Demand and acceptance of bribe sufficient for conviction: Supreme Court upholds conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act despite minor discrepancies

Case Name: Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2026 INSC 239
Date of Judgment/Order: 13 March 2026
Bench: Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Held: The Supreme Court held that where demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved through cogent and reliable evidence, conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is justified, and minor discrepancies or alleged contradictions in witness testimonies do not vitiate the prosecution case. The Court further held that corroboration by independent witnesses and scientific evidence such as phenolphthalein test strengthens the prosecution case, and absence of certain procedural objections raised belatedly cannot invalidate conviction.

Summary: The appellant, a constable in the Excise Department, was accused of demanding INR 500 as bribe from the complainant to avoid legal action in a contraband liquor case. Upon complaint, a trap was laid and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant, with chemical testing confirming contact. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was affirmed by the High Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant raised multiple grounds including alleged contradictions in witness testimony, interested nature of witnesses, improper trap proceedings, and non-production of currency notes. The Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant (PW-1) and independent witness (PW-2) consistently established demand and acceptance of bribe. It rejected the contention that PW-2 was an interested witness merely due to acquaintance with the complainant. The Court further held that minor inconsistencies or delay in witness examination did not affect the core prosecution case. It also noted that scientific evidence and trap proceedings were properly established, and that objections such as non-production of currency notes were not raised at earlier stages and thus could not be entertained.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on merits and upheld the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but modified the sentence considering age and custody already undergone, reducing it to six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year under Section 13(2), with the appeal disposed of accordingly.