The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the acquittal of three Central Excise officials in a corruption case dating back to 1995, holding that recovery of alleged bribe money alone is not enough to sustain a conviction. The Court said that unless the prosecution proves the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot stand.
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, which had acquitted A.K. Gaba, Alok Gupta and Dushyant Kumar after setting aside their conviction by a Special Judge in Lucknow.
According to the prosecution, officials of the Central Excise Department had inspected two factories in Barabanki in January 1995 and allegedly seized business records without issuing a receipt. The complainant later alleged that senior officer R.K. Srivastava demanded ₹80,000 as illegal gratification for returning those documents. Following a trap laid by the CBI, cash was recovered and a charge sheet was filed against the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
While the trial court convicted several accused in 2014, the High Court reversed the convictions in 2019 after re-evaluating the evidence. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged that acquittal before the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale found no error in the High Court's appreciation of evidence and agreed that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court observed,
“The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of demand, acceptance and criminal conspiracy.”
The Bench reiterated that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the foundation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It emphasized that even recovery of tainted money cannot by itself lead to conviction if the prosecution fails to prove that a bribe was demanded and voluntarily accepted.
The Court also noted that several material witnesses, including the complainant and independent witnesses, did not support the prosecution's version during trial. As a result, the statutory presumption available under the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be invoked.
Another factor that weighed with the Court was the prosecution's failure to produce the tape recording that the complainant claimed had captured the alleged demand for bribe.
The Bench observed that withholding such crucial electronic evidence justified drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution, particularly when the recording could have clarified who was present and what was actually said during the alleged conversation.
On the allegation of criminal conspiracy, the Court held that mere presence of the respondents at certain locations was insufficient to establish a conspiracy. There must be convincing evidence showing a prior agreement or "meeting of minds" among the accused, which the prosecution had failed to establish.
The judgment states,
“The conspiracy cannot be inferred merely on the basis of suspicion or association and there must be cogent material indicating meeting of minds between the accused persons.”
Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had carefully re-appreciated the evidence and its conclusions represented a plausible view based on the record. Since the acquittal was neither perverse nor contrary to law, there was no justification for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and affirmed the acquittal of the respondents.
Case Details:
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh Versus A.K. Gaba Etc.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3383–3385 of 2025
Judge: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Decision Date: 27 May 2026
-300x169.webp)
