The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of an Excise Department constable, Raj Bahadur Singh from Uttarakhand in a corruption case involving the acceptance of illegal gratification, while partially modifying the sentence in view of the passage of time and the age of the accused.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale observed that both the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and that there was no reason to interfere with the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bench affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and the Uttarakhand High Court that the accused had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500 from a complainant engaged in the liquor trade.
The case dates back to June 1990 when the appellant, Raj Bahadur Singh, was serving as a constable in the Excise Department in Udham Singh Nagar district of Uttarakhand. The complainant, Kashmir Singh, was allegedly involved in the manufacture of contraband liquor and had previously been confronted by the excise authorities on multiple occasions.
According to the prosecution, during a raid conducted on June 16, 1990, the accused threatened the complainant with legal action and demanded ₹500 as illegal gratification. The constable allegedly told the complainant that a challan would be forwarded to the court if the bribe was not paid and even claimed to have prepared a temporary bail bond that would only be honored upon payment.
Feeling threatened, the complainant approached the Vigilance Department and filed a complaint on June 18, 1990. Acting on the complaint, the vigilance authorities organized a trap operation at a restaurant in Khatima. During the trap, the complainant handed over five ₹100 notes treated with phenolphthalein powder to the accused. When the vigilance team intervened, the tainted currency was recovered from the accused, and a chemical test confirmed the presence of the powder on his hands.
Following investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court in 2006 convicted the constable and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2), along with fines.
The Uttarakhand High Court subsequently dismissed the appeal in 2012 and upheld both the conviction and the sentence, prompting the accused to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant argued that the complainant had falsely implicated him due to personal enmity and that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses regarding the time and circumstances of the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe. It was also contended that the shadow witness was not truly independent and that the tainted currency notes were not produced before the court.
The State, however, maintained that the prosecution had successfully established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through the testimony of the complainant and an independent witness. The State also pointed out that the trap operation was conducted by the vigilance authorities after the complainant approached them, and that the complainant had no role in constituting the trap team.
The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the complainant and the shadow witness was credible and had been consistently relied upon by the lower courts. The Court rejected the defence’s claim that the shadow witness was interested merely because he was acquainted with the complainant, noting that such acquaintance alone does not make a witness unreliable.
The Court also declined to accept the argument that the prosecution case was weakened because the currency notes were not produced before the court, observing that this objection had not been raised during earlier stages of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the offence occurred more than three decades ago and that the appellant was about 75 years old at the time of the judgment. The Court also considered that he had already spent around two months and 24 days in custody after surrendering in 2012.
In view of these circumstances, the Court modified the sentence to the statutory minimum—six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 and one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Details
Case Title: Raj Bahadur Singh Versus State Of Uttarakhand
Citation: JURISHOUR-359-SC-2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1105 Of 2013
Date: 13/03/2026
Read More: CBIC Opens Registration for Eligible Manufacturer Importer Scheme on AEO Portal
