Supreme Court on Reversal of Acquittal in Corruption Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a government officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, restoring the trial court’s acquittal. It reiterated that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. The Court held that the High Court erred in reversing an acquittal without finding the trial court’s view perverse. When the evidence is doubtful and demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 20 PC Act cannot be invoked.

• The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was accused of demanding ₹9,000 and accepting ₹3,000 as illegal gratification for renewing a labour licence.

• The prosecution case was based on a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), where the complainant allegedly handed over tainted notes to the accused.

• The Trial Court (2003) acquitted the appellant citing contradictions, unreliable witnesses, and a negative phenolphthalein test.

• The High Court (2011) reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

• The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Court emphasized the “double presumption of innocence” in cases of acquittal — first as a matter of criminal jurisprudence and second due to a trial court’s judgment in favour of the accused.

• The Court found no proof of demand or acceptance, as required under the PC Act.

• The handwash test was negative, and no independent witness was present at the time of alleged acceptance.

• The defence explanation — that the complainant planted the money in the drawer when the appellant went to the restroom — was supported by independent witnesses and could not be ruled out.

• The High Court failed to identify any perversity in the trial court’s reasoning before overturning the acquittal.

• Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof of demand and acceptance.

• Accordingly, the conviction was set aside and the trial court’s acquittal restored.

• Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.

• Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal misconduct by a public servant.

• Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Presumption where public servant accepts gratification.

• Principle of Double Presumption of Innocence – Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1263

Case: P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025

Criminal Appeal No.: 1770 of 2014