Legal Analysis: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. A.K. Gaba etc

Citation: 2026 INSC 568
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice Prasanna B. Varale & Justice Pankaj Mithal  
Judgment Author: Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date of Decision: May 27, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) acquitting the accused-respondents of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.

Synopsis of the Judgment
The respondents (public servants, including A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta, Inspectors, Central Excise) were tried along with R.K. Srivastava (Superintendent, Central Excise) for demand and acceptance of a bribe of Rs.80,000/- from a complainant. The trial court convicted them under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court, in appeal, acquitted all the accused (except one who was already acquitted by the trial court). The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the High Court had correctly reappreciated the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand of illegal gratification and criminal conspiracy. The Court reiterated that demand of bribe is the sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, and that mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand is insufficient. The prosecution had also withheld crucial evidence (a tape recording of the alleged demand), and material witnesses had turned hostile. The High Court's view was a plausible one, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the acquittal.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. A.K. Gaba etc.

• Criminal Appeal Nos.: 3383-3385 of 2025

• Bench: Justice Prasanna B. Varale &  Justice Pankaj Mithal  (Division Bench)

• Date of Decision: May 27, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 568

• Appeal From: Order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos. 967, 964 and 963 of 2014, acquitting the respondents.

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 114 (abettor present when offence committed), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence).

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act): Section 7 (offence of public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), Section 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by a public servant – by abusing position to obtain pecuniary advantage), Section 13(2) (punishment for criminal misconduct), Section 20 (presumption where public servant accepts gratification).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 313 (examination of accused), Section 233 (defence evidence).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 114 (illustration (g) – adverse inference for withholding evidence).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied:

• B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 – Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of PC Act; mere recovery of tainted money insufficient.

• P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152 – Proof of demand is gravamen of offence; presumption under Section 20 arises only after demand is proved.

• Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 176 – Same principle reiterated.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.