M Sambasiva Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 868 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Cases
"In trap cases where after a complaint is received, independent witnesses of the trap team are also required to confirm the demand made by the accused personally."
We make notes on all Supreme Court judgments for our subscribers’ community consisting of judges, lawyers and students of law and share it in this website. If you want to access them, you can join the community which costs you just ₹2 per day.
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Trap Cases - In trap cases where after a complaint is received, independent witnesses of the trap team are also required to confirm the demand made by the accused personally - Before the trap is set into motion, there should be corroboration of the allegation made by the complainant of actual and real demand being made by the accused-public servant as a quid pro quo for extending a favour to the complainant. (Para 37) - Referred to Neeraj Dutta v State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 on evidentiary standard to prove offence(s) under PC Act. (Para 24)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 386 - Where the accused persons have been acquitted by the Trial Court, there is a double presumption of innocence which accrues in their favour- Jafarudheen v State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440- Where two views are possible, the Court should err on the side of caution and lean in favour of the defence- Referred to Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra (Para 34-36)
Suggested Readings:
#SupremeCourt on Trap Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act: https://t.co/1x8vT7C7oc pic.twitter.com/1Lh516wOEp
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 18, 2025