Prevention of Corruption Act: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Excise Constable in 1990 Bribery Case

The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a former Uttarakhand excise constable accused of demanding a Rs 500 bribe from a villager allegedly involved in illicit liquor trade in 1990, while reducing his jail term on account of old age and prolonged litigation.

The Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale held that both the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and found no reason to interfere with the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

What was the case about?

The prosecution case was that in June 1990, excise officials raided a village in Udham Singh Nagar district and allegedly found contraband liquor activities linked to complainant Kashmir Singh. According to the complaint, excise constable Raj Bahadur Singh threatened to implicate Kashmir Singh in a criminal case unless he paid Rs 500 as illegal gratification.

The complainant subsequently approached the Vigilance Department, which organised a trap operation at a restaurant in Khatima. The prosecution claimed that tainted currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder were handed over to the accused, whose hands later turned pink when washed in sodium carbonate solution.

What did the accused argue?

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that he had been falsely implicated because the complainant bore hostility against him due to repeated action taken against his alleged liquor business. The defence also pointed to alleged contradictions in witness testimonies and argued that the tainted currency notes were not produced before the Court.

Another argument raised was that the shadow witness was not independent because he knew the complainant personally. The defence further questioned the fairness of the trap proceedings and contended that the accused was denied an opportunity to properly defend himself.

Why did the Supreme Court reject the defence?

Court held that the complainant’s testimony remained consistent and detailed throughout the proceedings and was corroborated by the shadow witness as well as other prosecution witnesses. The Bench said mere acquaintance between the complainant and the shadow witness was insufficient to brand the witness as “interested”.

Court also noted that the trap procedure, including recovery of tainted notes and the chemical test turning pink, had been duly recorded in the panchnama. Court found no material contradictions serious enough to discredit the prosecution version.

Rejecting the argument regarding non-production of the currency notes, the Bench observed that the issue had never been raised before either the trial court or the high court and could not be allowed to unsettle concurrent findings at the final appellate stage.

Why was the sentence reduced?

Despite affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence after taking note of the appellant’s age. Court recorded that the accused was around 40 years old at the time of the offence and is now approximately 75 years old. It also considered that he had already spent about two months and 24 days in custody after surrendering in 2012.

The Bench ultimately reduced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Case Title: Raj Bahadur Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale

Date of Judgment: March 13, 2026