In a major relief to a former Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the Supreme Court on Monday (October 28, 2025) set aside his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, calling the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s 2011 judgment “unsustainable” and “based on conjectures rather than proof.” The apex court restored the officer’s 2003 acquittal, emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence.
Background
The case dates back to 1997 when P. Somaraju, then Assistant Commissioner of Labour in Hyderabad, was accused of demanding a ₹9,000 bribe from a labour contractor, S. Venkat Reddy, for renewing licenses of his firms. The complainant claimed to have paid ₹3,000 upfront, with ₹6,000 due later. Acting on this complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) laid a trap and recovered ₹3,000 from Somaraju’s office drawer.
Read also:- Supreme Court rules preference shareholders not financial creditors under Insolvency Code
However, the trial court acquitted him in 2003, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove “demand and acceptance” two essential elements for conviction under the PC Act. The High Court, in 2011, reversed this and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment.
Court’s Observations
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Joymalya Bagchi went through every piece of evidence with a fine-tooth comb. The judges found “serious infirmities” in the prosecution’s story and said the High Court had ignored critical inconsistencies noted by the trial court.
“The High Court,” the bench said, “has seized upon minor circumstances and attributed wrongful intent without foundation. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.”
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Quashes Multiple FIRs Against Suvendu Adhikari, Calls Them "Politically Motivated
The Court noted that the complainant’s testimony was riddled with contradictions- he wrote the complaint before the alleged bribe demand occurred, misnamed the accused as ‘Rama Raju’ instead of ‘Soma Raju,’ and disregarded instructions by leaving the independent mediator outside during the alleged transaction.
Adding to this, the “hand-wash test” - a key step in bribery traps - returned negative results. The bench remarked that this fact “could neither prove nor disprove” guilt, but the High Court’s reasoning that clever public servants might “avoid pink stains” was speculative and unsound.
The judges also gave weight to defence witnesses, including a union president and a local advocate, who testified that the complainant entered Somaraju’s office alone while the officer had briefly stepped out to the toilet - suggesting that the money could have been planted. “Their depositions were consistent, plausible, and could not be brushed aside as biased,” the Court noted.
Court’s Decision
Finding no legal justification for the High Court’s interference, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s verdict.
Read also:- Supreme Court Deletes Adverse Remarks and Fine Against Uttarakhand State Election Commission
“The acquittal was based on careful evaluation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse or unsustainable,” the bench held. It ruled that the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only after proving both demand and acceptance -neither of which, the Court said, was shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Reiterating restraint in overturning acquittals, the bench cited Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007), emphasizing that unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable, an appellate court must not substitute its own.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the 2011 High Court conviction was quashed, and the 2003 acquittal stood restored. The bench concluded succinctly:
“The strength of the criminal process lies in restraint as much as in scrutiny. The appellant’s acquittal, having stood on reasonable grounds, deserves to stand restored.”
Somaraju, who was on bail, was formally discharged from all obligations.
Case: P. Somaraju vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2025)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1263
Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2014
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Judgment: October 28, 2025
