The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the acquittal of Central Excise officers accused of demanding and accepting bribe, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational ingredients of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on 05.01.1995 when officers of the Central Excise Department visited factories at Barabanki and seized records from M/s Amoli Ceraplast Ltd. without issuing any acknowledgement. The complainant, Kuldeep Tiwari, alleged that R.K. Srivastava (Superintendent) demanded Rs. 80,000/- as illegal gratification for returning the documents. A trap was laid, and money was allegedly recovered from the residence of R.K. Srivastava.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 120-B IPC, Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and other provisions. The Trial Court convicted the accused (including A.K. Gaba, Alok Gupta, Dushyant Kumar) while acquitting one. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) acquitted all accused vide order dated 27.05.2019. The State approached the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
- Whether demand and acceptance of bribe were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Sufficiency of evidence for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.
- Propriety of the High Court’s interference with the Trial Court’s conviction.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale delivered the judgment on 27 May 2026.
The Court held:
- Demand is sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. Mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from proof of demand, is insufficient.
- Prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, largely did not support the case. Material inconsistencies and turning hostile of key witnesses were noted.
- No substantive evidence showed active participation by the respondent officers in the alleged demand. Their presence was explainable as part of official duty/protocol.
- The charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC was not established, as there was no evidence of meeting of minds or prior agreement. The principal accused (R.K. Srivastava) was not even charged under Section 120-B.
- Withholding of best evidence (alleged tape-recorded conversation) led to adverse inference against the prosecution.
- The High Court meticulously re-appreciated evidence and took a plausible view. Interference with acquittal under Article 136 is unwarranted unless findings are perverse.
The appeals were dismissed, reinforcing that presumption under Section 20 PC Act arises only upon proof of demand.
Key Takeaways
- Demand and voluntary acceptance are indispensable for conviction under PC Act provisions. Recovery alone is not sufficient.
- In conspiracy cases, mere presence or association is inadequate; cogent evidence of agreement and common intention is required.
- High Court’s detailed re-appreciation of evidence in acquittal appeals deserves deference unless manifestly perverse.
- Prosecution must produce all material evidence; withholding key material (e.g., recordings) weakens the case.
Case Details
Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K. Gaba etc.
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3383-3385 of 2025 (2026 INSC 568)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date of Judgment: 27 May 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 