Corruption cases involving public officials often raise complex questions regarding criminal liability, especially when multiple accused persons are involved. A frequent defence raised in bribery prosecutions is that if one accused is acquitted, particularly where conspiracy is alleged, then the conviction of another accused should automatically fail.
The Supreme Court of India recently clarified this legal issue in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Baljeet Singh (2026 INSC 221). The Court held that a public servant cannot escape conviction for bribery merely because a co-accused has been acquitted, provided the prosecution establishes independent evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification against the convicted accused.
The judgment is significant for its interpretation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the principles governing conspiracy charges, and the evidentiary value of trap proceedings in corruption cases. It clarifies that the failure to prove conspiracy does not necessarily invalidate an independent charge of bribery.
This decision reinforces the principle that criminal liability in corruption offences must be assessed individually, based on evidence relating to each accused.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a corruption complaint filed against officials of the Income Tax Department. The complainant, Pawan Aggarwal, was a partner in a firm whose income-tax assessment for the assessment year 2008–09 was pending before the department.
The key accused in the case were:
- Arun Kumar Gurjar (A1) – Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Assessing Officer
- Baljeet Singh (A2) – Inspector in the Income Tax Department
According to the complainant, he had approached the Income Tax office regarding the scrutiny of his firm’s accounts. During his interactions with the officers, A2 allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹5 lakhs on behalf of A1 to finalise the assessment without raising objections.
The complainant resisted the demand and eventually approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which initiated a trap operation.
The CBI recorded the complaint and conducted a pre-trap verification, involving independent witnesses and the preparation of marked currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder. These notes were to be used to catch the accused red-handed.
The Trap Operation
On 29 December 2010, the complainant visited the Income Tax office with the marked currency notes. During the trap:
- The complainant handed over an envelope containing ₹2 lakhs to Baljeet Singh (A2).
- A2 placed the envelope in the pocket of his coat.
- After the pre-arranged signal, the CBI team entered the room and apprehended him.
The envelope containing the marked notes was recovered from A2’s coat pocket. When his hands were washed in a sodium carbonate solution, the liquid turned pink, indicating contact with phenolphthalein powder, thereby confirming the acceptance of the tainted money.
Following the trap, both A1 and A2 were arrested.
Charges Framed Against the Accused
The prosecution framed two principal charges:
- Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code [Section 61(2) of BNS], read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution alleged that both officers had demanded a bribe of ₹5 lakhs and that A2 accepted ₹2 lakhs as part payment on behalf of both accused.
Trial Court Decision
After examining the evidence and witnesses, the Trial Court convicted both accused.
The court held that:
- The evidence established a criminal conspiracy between A1 and A2.
- The prosecution successfully proved the demand and acceptance of a bribe.
- Both accused were sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh each.
The conviction relied heavily on:
- Testimony of the complainant (PW1)
- Evidence of independent witnesses
- Recovery of marked currency notes
- Phenolphthalein test results
High Court Acquittal
The accused appealed before the High Court, which reversed the conviction.
The High Court held that:
- Conspiracy was not proved, as there was insufficient evidence showing a meeting of minds between A1 and A2.
- The prosecution had failed to establish the demand of bribe convincingly.
- The recorded conversations could not be relied upon due to lack of certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Based on these findings, the High Court acquitted both accused.
Appeal Before the Supreme Court
The CBI challenged the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court.
However, during the proceedings:
- The appeal against the acquittal of A1 (Arun Kumar Gurjar) was dismissed earlier.
- The Court was therefore primarily concerned with whether A2 (Baljeet Singh) could still be convicted despite the acquittal of A1.
The central legal question became:
Can a public servant be convicted for bribery if the alleged co-conspirator has already been acquitted?
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence and the legal principles involved.
1. Separate Charges Against the Accused
The Court observed that the charge sheet contained two independent charges:
- Conspiracy under Section 120B IPC [Section 61(2) of BNS]
- Demand and acceptance of bribe under Section 7 PC Act
Even if conspiracy fails, the second charge can still survive independently.
The Court stated that if the prosecution proves demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by an accused, he can be convicted even without establishing conspiracy.
2. Absence of Evidence Against A1
The Court agreed with the High Court that:
- There was no direct evidence showing that A1 demanded or accepted a bribe.
- The statement that A2 demanded money “on behalf of A1” was insufficient to convict A1.
Therefore, the acquittal of A1 was justified.
3. Evidence Against A2
However, the situation was different for A2.
The Court found several pieces of evidence establishing his guilt:
- Testimony of the complainant describing the demand made by A2
- Recovery of marked currency notes from A2’s pocket
- Phenolphthalein test confirming contact with the tainted notes
- Corroboration by trap witnesses and the investigating officer
These circumstances collectively proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by A2.
4. Independent Witnesses and Hostility
Two independent witnesses had partially turned hostile during the trial. However, the Court relied on the principle that even hostile witnesses can be relied upon to the extent their testimony supports the prosecution.
The Court cited earlier precedents affirming that testimony of trap witnesses and investigators can be relied upon if it appears credible.
5. No Automatic Benefit from Co-Accused’s Acquittal
One of the strongest arguments raised by the defence was that once the conspiracy charge failed and A1 was acquitted, A2 must also be acquitted. The Supreme Court rejected this argument.
The Court held that criminal liability must be determined individually, and the acquittal of one accused does not automatically absolve another accused when evidence exists against him.
Final Verdict of the Supreme Court
After analysing the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that:
- The prosecution failed to establish conspiracy between A1 and A2.
- However, the demand and acceptance of bribe by A2 were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Court:
- Set aside the High Court’s acquittal of A2
- Restored the conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
Considering the age of the accused and other circumstances, the Court reduced the sentence from four years to one year of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹1 lakh.
The accused was directed to surrender within four weeks.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in CBI v. Baljeet Singh (2026) reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal law: each accused must be judged based on evidence against them individually.
The Court clarified that the acquittal of a co-accused, especially where conspiracy is not proved, does not automatically invalidate the conviction of another accused for bribery if the prosecution establishes independent proof of demand and acceptance.
By restoring the conviction of the Income Tax Inspector who accepted a bribe during a trap operation, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to combating corruption within public institutions. The ruling strengthens the legal framework under the Prevention of Corruption Act and ensures that procedural technicalities do not shield guilty public officials from accountability.
Public servants cannot evade corruption charges merely by relying on the acquittal of their alleged collaborators when evidence clearly establishes their own culpability.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams