Summary and Analysis of M. Sambasiva Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2017)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Acquittal of Public Servant in Corruption Case: Prosecution Failed to Prove Demand & Acceptance of Bribe Beyond Reasonable Doubt

2. Related Laws & Sections

The case involves:

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA):
  Section 7: Demand/acceptance of bribe by a public servant.
  Section 12: Abetment of offences under PCA.
  Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2): Criminal misconduct by a public servant.

• Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy.

• Constitutional Protection:
  Article 20(3): Right against self-incrimination.

3. Basic Judgment Details

AspectDetailsPartiesAppellant: M. Sambasiva Rao (AAO, United India Insurance).
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh.Background- Appellant (Accused No. 1) allegedly demanded ₹40,000 as bribe to process an insurance claim of ₹8 lakhs.
- A trap was laid by CBI; bribe money was recovered from Accused No. 3 (appellant’s brother) and Accused No. 2 (Regional Manager).Lower Courts- Trial Court (2005): Acquitted all accused.
- High Court (2015): Reversed acquittal; convicted appellant and Accused No. 3.Supreme Court VerdictAllowed appeal, acquitted the appellant, and restored the Trial Court’s order.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant?

2. Whether the trap proceedings were reliable?

3. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal?

Supreme Court’s Analysis

A. Failure to Prove Demand of Bribe

• Demand Not Established:
  The appellant processed the insurance claim on 16.08.1999 and forwarded it to higher authorities by 15.09.1999. Thus, no pending "official favor" was due from him when the bribe was allegedly demanded (October 1999).
  No Witness Corroboration: Only the complainant (PW1) testified about the demand. Independent trap witnesses did not confirm it.

• Inherent Improbability:
  Accused No. 2 had twice transferred the appellant based on vigilance complaints (August 1999). The Court found it "inconceivable" that they would conspire just a month later.

B. Fatal Flaws in Trap Proceedings

1. Suspicious Role of SP (Superintendent of Police):
   The SP’s tour diary (Exhibit D3) showed he was in Hyderabad on the trap day (23.10.1999) and "participated in the trap." However, no prosecution witness admitted his presence. This contradicted the CBI Inspector’s (PW12) testimony.

2. Discrepancy in Seized Evidence:
   Prosecution claimed a "white shirt" worn by Accused No. 3 was seized. The Trial Court examined it and found it "moss-colored," not white. The High Court’s excuse—that the color faded over time—was rejected as "irrational."

3. Unjustified Phenolphthalein Test:
   Phenolphthalein powder was never applied to the whisky bottle (as per the first mediators’ report). Yet, the second report claimed powder was recovered from it. The High Court’s assumption of "transfer via hands" was deemed "conjectural."

C. High Court’s Erroneous Reversal of Acquittal

• Ignored Presumption of Innocence: In acquittal appeals, the accused enjoys a "double presumption of innocence" (Jafarudheen v State of Kerala). The High Court failed to provide "cogent reasons" to overturn the Trial Court’s well-reasoned order.

• Reliance on Inferences: The High Court convicted the appellant based on a phone call (21.10.1999) between him and Accused No. 2. However, the contents were unknown, and drawing "adverse inference" violated Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination).

Final Ruling

• Prosecution Case "Miserably Failed": The evidence suffered from "glaring contradictions" (e.g., SP’s role, shirt color, phenolphthalein test).

• Benefit of Doubt to Accused: Where two views are possible, courts must lean in favor of the accused (Suresh Thippa Shetty v State of Maharashtra).

• Verdict: Appellant acquitted; Trial Court’s order restored. Fine (if paid) to be refunded.

Key Takeaways

1. Demand & Acceptance are Mandatory: Prosecution must prove both beyond doubt for PCA offences (Neeraj Dutta v State).

2. Trap Proceedings Must Be Flawless: Inconsistencies in recovery/evidence create reasonable doubt.

3. Acquittal Reversal Requires Strong Grounds: Appellate courts cannot reverse acquittals based on conjectures.