Supreme Court acquits public servant in corruption case, cites 'impatience' of CBI in probe

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The Bench said the CBI did not allow the trap to run its full course and could not prove that the recovered money was meant for the appellant. File

The Supreme Court has acquitted a public servant in a corruption case more than two decades old, in which a trap was laid over an alleged bribery demand, while flagging the “serious lacuna and impatience” of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the investigation.

The Court, in a verdict delivered on Wednesday (September 16, 2026) 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 that the CBI could not prove that the recovered “bribe” money was meant for him.

It was alleged that the appellant, while serving as Divisional Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), 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 led to multiple final reports and several prosecutions, each founded on distinct alleged transactions of illegal gratification.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and N. Kotiswar Singh said there were elements of doubt in the manner the trap was executed.

The Bench noted that the complainant apparently informed the CBI on August 3, 2005, about the bribe allegedly demanded by the appellant, and the agency decided to lay a trap the next day. An FIR was lodged on August 4, 2005, and the trap was executed the same day.

“It is surprising that the CBI started the investigation of a cognisable offence by way of verifying the complaint of bribery even before the formal FIR was lodged,” the Bench said. It also noted that the CBI arranged the two independent trap witnesses only a short time before the trap was executed.

The Bench said that while the investigating agency could not be faulted for organising the trap in such an “extraordinarily speedy manner”, that could raise certain doubts. It noted that the trial court had brushed aside the doubts raised by the appellant.

Taking into account the trial court’s own observations, the Bench said there were “certainly elements of doubt in the manner the trap was executed”, which the trial court ignored, and that the lapses raised reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.

“It is relevant to consider the reason the trap was not permitted to run its full course as against the appellant,” the Bench said. “If the money was ultimately meant to reach the appellant, the investigating agency ought to have kept a watch on him and not merely on the person who was later examined as an approver and prosecution witness during the trial.”

Had the 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, the Bench said.

It said the CBI’s “serious lacuna and impatience” in the investigation “would enure to the benefit of the appellant”.

The Bench said the jurisprudence governing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act had evolved on the fundamental premise that criminality does not arise merely because money changes hands.

The prosecution must establish 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, it said, adding that “proof of demand and acceptance occupies a position of central importance in prosecutions under the Act”.

In view of the “lingering reasonable doubts”, the Bench said, the charge against the appellant could not be said to have been proved with the definitiveness required under the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

While allowing the two appeals, the Court acquitted the appellant of all charges in these cases.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.