The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of Central Excise officials accused in a 1995 CBI trap case involving alleged demand and acceptance of ₹80,000 as illegal gratification, reiterating that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless the prosecution conclusively proves the demand and acceptance of bribe. 

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has observed that conspiracy cannot be inferred merely from the presence of officials at certain places or from suspicion. There must be cogent evidence showing a meeting of minds and prior agreement between the accused persons. 

The case originated from an FIR lodged in January 1995 alleging that Central Excise Superintendent R.K. Srivastava, along with Inspectors A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta, had seized records from M/s Amoli Ceraplast Ltd. without acknowledgment and later demanded ₹80,000 for returning the documents. The complainant approached the CBI, leading to a trap operation in which ₹60,000 was allegedly recovered from a bedroom and ₹20,000 from the pocket of another accused. 

Following investigation, the CBI filed charges under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In 2014, the Special Judge convicted several accused persons, including A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta, for criminal conspiracy and corruption offences. 

However, the Allahabad High Court later acquitted the accused after reappreciating the evidence and holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe. The High Court observed that several prosecution witnesses, including independent witnesses, did not support the prosecution version and that the evidence against the accused officials was insufficient. 

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning and held that demand of illegal gratification is the “sine qua non” for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court emphasized that recovery of tainted money alone cannot establish guilt in the absence of reliable proof regarding demand and voluntary acceptance of bribe. 

Relying on earlier precedents including B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, and Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that proof of demand is the gravamen of corruption offences and failure to prove such demand is fatal to the prosecution case. 

A significant aspect noted by the Court was the prosecution’s failure to produce the alleged tape-recorded conversation which, according to the complainant himself, captured the bribe demand. The Court observed that this material electronic evidence could have conclusively established the identity of persons involved and the exact conversation that took place. The investigating agency neither seized nor produced the tape recorder and offered no explanation for withholding such crucial evidence. 

Referring to the ruling in Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution when best electronic evidence is withheld without justification. 

The Court also found no material to sustain the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. 

The Bench further noted that the principal allegation of bribe demand was against R.K. Srivastava alone and no independent evidence demonstrated that the other accused officials actively participated in the demand or shared criminal intent. 

While considering the State’s challenge to acquittal, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal. It observed that once an accused is acquitted, the presumption of innocence stands reinforced and appellate interference is warranted only where findings are perverse or wholly unreasonable. 

Holding that the High Court had adopted a plausible and legally sustainable view based on evidence on record, the Supreme Court refused to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed all criminal appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.  

Case Details

Case Title: State Of Uttar Pradesh Versus A.K.Gaba Etc.

Citation: JURISHOUR-1450-SC-2026

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(S). 3383-3385 Of 2025

Date: 27/05/2026

Read More: Non-Appearance Of Directors Alone Can’t Justify Treating Share Capital As Bogus: ITAT