The Supreme Court on 15 April 2026 allowed the appeal filed by the State of Kerala and set aside the acquittal order passed by the High Court in a prosecution under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Restoring the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that courts cannot discard the testimony of a hostile witness in its entirety; instead, every court must scrutinise the deposition and rely upon those portions which are creditworthy and find support from other evidence on record. The Court observed that the mere fact that the complainant turned hostile cannot justify acquittal when the demand and acceptance of bribe are otherwise proved through the complainant’s own statements corroborated by independent witnesses and the trap officer.
The respondent, who was the Taluk Supply Officer, was alleged to have demanded ₹500 from the complainant, an Authorised Ration Dealer, for countersigning the ‘Abstract’ of changes in ration cards, a statutory duty required to be performed every three months. Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the Vigilance Department, where an oral complaint was recorded in the presence of two independent witnesses and reduced into writing as Ext.P1. A trap was laid after pre-trap formalities, including demonstration of the phenolphthalein powder on the marked currency note. The complainant, accompanied by one independent witness, handed over the marked note to the respondent inside his cabin. The trap team rushed in on the pre-arranged signal, recovered the marked note from the respondent’s shirt pocket, and found his left hand and the pocket turning pink on the test solution. The acceptance of the bribe was unequivocally established and was not disputed by the respondent.
The trial court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment under each count, to run concurrently, along with a fine of ₹10,000 and default sentence. The High Court, however, acquitted the respondent on the ground that the complainant (PW1) had turned hostile, prevaricated in his deposition, and denied the demand in cross-examination, while the other independent witness who had accompanied the complainant into the cabin was not examined. The High Court held that demand, an essential ingredient under Section 7, was not proved.
The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, speaking for the bench, noted that the complainant had categorically affirmed before the court that the statements made in the complaint (Ext.P1) regarding the demand of ₹500 on two earlier occasions were correct, that he had confirmed the truth of the complaint to the independent witnesses, and that the complaint had been read over to him in their presence. These admissions were fully corroborated by PW2, one of the independent witnesses, whose evidence remained unimpeached, and by PW17, the Vigilance Officer who recorded the complaint. The Court emphasised that the creditworthy portions of PW1’s testimony, which established both the demand and the subsequent acceptance during the trap, could not be eschewed merely because the witness had accepted defence suggestions in cross-examination or had given inconsistent answers on certain points.
Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court clarified that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), but the Court must examine the entire testimony of a hostile witness and act upon the credible part. The bench quoted with approval the earlier decision in Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration that once a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with leave of the court, it is for the judge of fact to determine whether the credit of the witness has been completely shaken or whether any part of his testimony remains believable. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erroneously discarded the entire evidence of PW1 despite noticing several portions where he admitted the demand, while the acceptance stood proved beyond reasonable doubt through the trap proceedings spoken to by PW1, PW2 and PW17.
The Court also rejected the respondent’s explanation that the amount was handed over for some other purpose, noting that the defence suggestion made in cross-examination and the explanation offered under Section 313 were mutually contradictory and stood belied by the evidence of the independent witness. The false explanation offered for acceptance of the marked note was held to be a compelling circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused.
In the result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The Court found no reason to interfere with the statutory minimum sentence awarded. The judgment is reported as 2026 INSC 365.
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 