State of Uttar Pradeshv.A K Gaba etc

Legal Analysis: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. A.K. Gaba etc

Citation: 2026 INSC 568
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice Prasanna B. Varale & Justice Pankaj Mithal  
Judgment Author: Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date of Decision: May 27, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) acquitting the accused-respondents of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.

Synopsis of the Judgment
The respondents (public servants, including A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta, Inspectors, Central Excise) were tried along with R.K. Srivastava (Superintendent, Central Excise) for demand and acceptance of a bribe of Rs.80,000/- from a complainant. The trial court convicted them under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court, in appeal, acquitted all the accused (except one who was already acquitted by the trial court). The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the High Court had correctly reappreciated the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand of illegal gratification and criminal conspiracy. The Court reiterated that demand of bribe is the sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, and that mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand is insufficient. The prosecution had also withheld crucial evidence (a tape recording of the alleged demand), and material witnesses had turned hostile. The High Court's view was a plausible one, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the acquittal.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. A.K. Gaba etc.

• Criminal Appeal Nos.: 3383-3385 of 2025

• Bench: Justice Prasanna B. Varale &  Justice Pankaj Mithal  (Division Bench)

• Date of Decision: May 27, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 568

• Appeal From: Order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos. 967, 964 and 963 of 2014, acquitting the respondents.

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 114 (abettor present when offence committed), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence).

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act): Section 7 (offence of public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act), Section 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by a public servant – by abusing position to obtain pecuniary advantage), Section 13(2) (punishment for criminal misconduct), Section 20 (presumption where public servant accepts gratification).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 313 (examination of accused), Section 233 (defence evidence).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 114 (illustration (g) – adverse inference for withholding evidence).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied:

• B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 – Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of PC Act; mere recovery of tainted money insufficient.

• P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152 – Proof of demand is gravamen of offence; presumption under Section 20 arises only after demand is proved.

• Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 176 – Same principle reiterated.

• Rakesh Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2016) – Demand must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 450 – Mere recovery of tainted money divorced from circumstances is not sufficient.

• C.M. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 15 SCC 740 – Recovery of tainted money itself does not constitute offence unless voluntary acceptance with knowledge is proved.

• Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) through LRs v. State of Punjab (2017) – Reaffirmed that proof of demand is indispensable; failure to prove demand is fatal.

• Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178 – Adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution for withholding best evidence (e.g., tape recorder).

• Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 – Principles governing appeals against acquittal: appellate court has power to reappreciate evidence but must give due weight to presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal; if two reasonable conclusions are possible, acquittal should not be disturbed.

• State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Mannan (2011) 12 SCC 276 – Scope of interference by Supreme Court in acquittal is limited.

• Hakeem Khan v. State of M.P. (2017) 7 SCC 676 – A "possible view" taken by the lower court, even if the higher court disagrees, should not be interfered with.

• State of Gujarat v. Manshankar Prabhashankar Duwiedi (1972) – Abuse of position as public servant is sine qua non for Section 13(1)(d).

• State by Special Police Establishment v. D. Krishnamurthy (1993) – Same.

What the Judgment is About: The judgment dismisses the State's appeal against the acquittal of Central Excise officers in a corruption case. It reaffirms that for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand of illegal gratification by the accused. Mere presence at the scene, recovery of tainted money, or suspicion of conspiracy is insufficient. The High Court's acquittal was based on a thorough reappreciation of evidence, including the fact that material witnesses turned hostile, the complainant's evidence was unreliable, and the prosecution withheld a tape recording that could have proved the demand. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was plausible and did not warrant interference.

3. Relevant Facts

• On 05.01.1995, R.K. Srivastava (Superintendent, Central Excise), along with A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta (Inspectors, Central Excise), visited M/s Prime Products and M/s Amoli Ceraplast Ltd. in Barabanki. They seized all available records of M/s Amoli Ceraplast Ltd. without issuing any acknowledgement.

• The complainant, Kuldeep Tiwari (Retainer Consultant), visited R.K. Srivastava's office on 10.01.1995 at about 10:00 PM and asked for the return of the documents. Srivastava allegedly demanded Rs.80,000/- as illegal gratification for returning the documents.

• The complainant lodged an FIR with the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Lucknow.

• On 10.01.1995 at about 7:00 PM, the complainant, along with a shadow witness, visited Srivastava's office. A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta were also present. Srivastava again demanded Rs.80,000/-.

• On 14.01.1995, the complainant and shadow witnesses visited Srivastava's residence with Rs.80,000/-. P.K. Srivastava (brother) and Dushyant Kumar were also present. The CBI raided the house. Rs.60,000/- was recovered from the bedroom and Rs.20,000/- from the jacket pocket of P.K. Srivastava. The hands of R.K. Srivastava, P.K. Srivastava, and Dushyant Kumar were dipped in a solution which turned pink, indicating they had handled the bribe money.

• After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 11.11.1997 against the accused for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7, Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and Sections 114 and 201 IPC.

• The Special Judge, Lucknow, convicted R.K. Srivastava, A.K. Gaba, Dushyant Kumar, and Alok Gupta, and acquitted P.K. Srivastava (giving benefit of doubt).

• The convicted accused filed appeals before the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court, by order dated 27.05.2019, allowed all three appeals and acquitted the respondents (A.K. Gaba, Alok Gupta, and Dushyant Kumar).

• The State of Uttar Pradesh filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

4. Issues

1. Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondents (A.K. Gaba, Alok Gupta, and Dushyant Kumar) of the charges under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite the trial court having convicted them.

2. Whether the prosecution had proved the essential ingredients of "demand" and "acceptance" of illegal gratification against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was established against the respondents when the principal accused (R.K. Srivastava) was not charged under Section 120B IPC and there was no evidence of meeting of minds.

4. Whether the High Court, in an appeal against conviction, was entitled to reappreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with an order of acquittal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act (Paras 11-16).

The Court reiterated the well-settled legal position that proof of demand of illegal gratification is indispensable for an offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted money, without proof that the accused demanded it as a bribe, is insufficient to sustain conviction. The Court cited a long line of authorities including B. Jayaraj, P. Satyanarayana Murthy, Krishan Chander, Banarsi Dass, C.M. Sharma, and Mukhtiar Singh. The High Court had correctly found that the prosecution failed to establish demand against the respondents – A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta were merely present at the time of demand by R.K. Srivastava, and Dushyant Kumar was present at the time of acceptance but there was no evidence that he demanded or accepted the bribe.

B. The prosecution withheld crucial evidence (tape recorder) – adverse inference drawn (Paras 24-27).

The complainant had stated that he used a tape recorder to record the conversation of demand on 10.01.1995. This tape recording was never produced by the prosecution nor seized during investigation. The High Court noted that this was a deliberate withholding of best evidence. The Supreme Court, citing Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., held that an adverse inference under Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act should be drawn against the prosecution. The tape recording could have conclusively established the participants and the exact nature of the conversation. Its non-production severely weakened the prosecution case.

C. Conspiracy under Section 120B IPC not established (Paras 19-23).

The Court held that to prove criminal conspiracy, the prosecution must show a meeting of minds between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. Conspiracy is seldom proved by direct evidence but must be inferred from circumstances that form a complete chain. In this case, the principal accused (R.K. Srivastava) was not charged under Section 120B IPC – he was charged only under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. It was illogical to charge the subordinate officers with conspiracy when the alleged "chief conspirator" was not charged with conspiracy. Moreover, mere presence at the time of demand or acceptance does not, by itself, establish conspiracy. There was no evidence of any prior agreement or concert between the respondents and R.K. Srivastava. The High Court was therefore justified in setting aside the conspiracy conviction.

D. The High Court's appreciation of evidence was thorough and the view taken was plausible (Paras 28-36).

The High Court had meticulously reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence. It noted that the complainant (PW1) and other material witnesses had not supported the prosecution case in material particulars – many turned hostile. The evidence of demand against the respondents was lacking. The trial court's judgment was based on presumptions (using words like "Sambhavtah" and "Prateet hota hai" – meaning "possibly" and "it appears") rather than on cogent proof. The High Court was right in observing that such presumptions cannot replace legal evidence. The Supreme Court, applying the principles from Chandrappa, Abdul Mannan, and Hakeem Khan, held that where the High Court's view is a possible and reasonable view on the evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal. The presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal, and interference is warranted only if the findings are perverse or manifestly illegal. No such exceptional circumstance existed.

E. The appeals were dismissed (Paras 37-38).

The Supreme Court found no merit in the State's appeals. The High Court's judgment acquitting the respondents was upheld.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Reaffirmation of demand as sine qua non: The judgment strongly reiterates that in corruption cases under the PC Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is an indispensable requirement. Without proof of demand, mere recovery of money, even if tainted, cannot lead to conviction. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only after demand is proved.

• Conspiracy cannot be inferred from mere presence or association: To establish conspiracy, the prosecution must show a meeting of minds and an agreement to commit an illegal act. The fact that a subordinate officer accompanied a senior officer (as part of protocol or duty) does not, without more, make him a co-conspirator. When the principal accused is not charged with conspiracy, it is difficult to sustain a conspiracy charge against others.

• Adverse inference for withholding best evidence: If the prosecution has in its possession or could have easily obtained crucial evidence (such as a tape recording of a conversation), and it fails to produce it without any explanation, an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

• Trial court's use of conjectural language is impermissible: The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's criticism of the trial court using words like "possibly" and "it appears" while convicting the accused. Criminal guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not on the basis of speculation or likelihood.

• Scope of interference in acquittals (reiterated): If the High Court, in an appeal against conviction, reappreciates the evidence and takes a plausible view (even if different from the trial court), the Supreme Court will not interfere, especially when the High Court's view is based on cogent reasoning and the absence of essential ingredients of the offence.

7. Court's Examination and Analysis of Concepts

• Analysis of the evidence regarding demand (Paras 9-10, 17-18): The Court quoted extensively from the High Court's judgment. The High Court had found that the prosecution witnesses (except PW5) did not support the case. PW5's testimony was not sufficient to establish demand against the respondents. The complainant's own evidence was inconsistent. The High Court observed that the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance were "absolutely lacking" against the appellants (the respondents before the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment.

• Analysis of the role of the respondents (Paras 19-23): The Court noted that A.K. Gaba and Alok Gupta were Inspectors subordinate to R.K. Srivastava (Superintendent). Their presence on 10.01.1995 and 14.01.1995 was explained by protocol – they were required to accompany their senior officer. There was no evidence that they demanded the bribe or received any part of it. Dushyant Kumar was present at the time of recovery and counted the money, but counting money in the presence of a senior officer does not establish that he was a party to the conspiracy or that he accepted the bribe. The trial court had acquitted P.K. Srivastava (brother) despite recovery from his jacket, which further highlighted the inconsistency in the trial court's approach.

• Analysis of conspiracy (Paras 19-23): The Court held that the prosecution failed to produce any substantive evidence of a prior agreement. The fact that the respondents were present at the scene, without more, did not prove conspiracy. Moreover, since R.K. Srivastava (the alleged main conspirator) was not charged under Section 120B IPC, the charge of conspiracy against the respondents was illogical and untenable.

• Analysis of the tape recorder evidence (Paras 24-27): The Court noted that the complainant himself stated that he used a tape recorder to record the conversation. The investigating agency did not seize this tape recorder, nor did the prosecution produce the recording. There was no explanation for this failure. The Court held that this was a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act – that if the best evidence was withheld, it may be presumed that it would have been unfavourable to the prosecution.

• Analysis of the trial court's errors (Para 10): The High Court had criticized the trial court for using words like "Sambhavtah" (possibly) and "Prateet hota hai" (it appears) while convicting the accused. The Supreme Court endorsed this criticism, holding that criminal guilt cannot be founded on suspicion or conjecture. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, not on a balance of probabilities or "possibility".

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a robust reaffirmation of fundamental principles of criminal law and corruption law. It correctly emphasises that demand of illegal gratification is the heart of the offence under the PC Act. The consistent line of precedents on this point is properly applied. The judgment also rightly draws an adverse inference for the withholding of the tape recorder – a crucial piece of electronic evidence that could have settled the matter conclusively. The discussion on conspiracy is sound: it would be illogical to convict subordinate officers for conspiracy when the principal accused was not charged with conspiracy. The judgment also respects the limited scope of interference with acquittals, which is essential for maintaining the finality of criminal judgments, especially where the High Court has given cogent reasons.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly discuss whether the respondents could have been convicted under Section 7 read with Section 34 IPC (common intention) instead of conspiracy. The prosecution's case was that the respondents were present and participated in the demand and acceptance. The High Court and Supreme Court found no evidence of demand against them. However, the judgment does not consider whether the mere presence and failure to object could amount to abetment or common intention. That said, given the high standard of proof in criminal cases, the conclusion that evidence was insufficient is defensible. Another potential concern is that the Supreme Court did not independently examine the evidence but largely relied on the High Court's appreciation. However, in appeals against acquittal, the Supreme Court often does this, and the judgment correctly cites Chandrappa for the proposition that if the High Court's view is plausible, interference is not warranted.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all corruption cases where the prosecution relies solely on recovery of money without proving demand. It strengthens the defence position that mere presence at the scene or recovery from the vicinity is insufficient. It also serves as a warning to investigating agencies: if you have electronic evidence (recordings, CCTV, etc.), you must seize and produce it; failure to do so will invite an adverse inference. The judgment also clarifies that in conspiracy cases involving public servants, the prosecution must prove a meeting of minds; mere association or following orders is not enough. For trial courts, the judgment warns against using conjectural language ("possibly", "it appears") in judgments of conviction.

9. Final Outcome

• Criminal Appeal Nos. 3383-3385 of 2025: Dismissed.

• The impugned order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos. 967, 964 and 963 of 2014 was affirmed.

• The respondents (A.K. Gaba, Alok Gupta, and Dushyant Kumar) stand acquitted of all charges.

• Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

• No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• For an accused in a corruption case (public servant): At the trial, focus on the absence of proof of demand. If the prosecution has not produced any evidence that you demanded the bribe – only that money was recovered from your possession or presence – move for acquittal. In your defence, point out that mere recovery is insufficient without proof of demand. Also, if the prosecution had access to electronic evidence (recordings, CCTV) and did not produce it, argue for an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. If you are a subordinate officer who accompanied a senior officer, argue that your presence was part of official duties (protocol) and does not by itself make you a co-conspirator.

• For the prosecution (State/CBI): In a corruption case, you must lead independent, credible evidence of demand. This can be through the complainant's testimony (if reliable), shadow witnesses, or electronic recordings. If the complainant used a tape recorder, seize it immediately and produce the recording in court. Do not rely solely on recovery and the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act – the presumption only arises after demand is proved. In conspiracy cases, ensure that all alleged conspirators are charged with conspiracy. If the principal accused is not charged with conspiracy, the charge against others will likely fail.

• For the defence lawyer in an appeal against conviction: Argue that the prosecution failed to prove demand. Cite B. Jayaraj, P. Satyanarayana Murthy, and this judgment. If the trial court used conjectural language ("possibly", "it appears") in its judgment, highlight that as an error – criminal guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not on suspicion. If the High Court has acquitted, argue before the Supreme Court that the High Court's view is plausible and that the Supreme Court should not interfere under Article 136 unless the findings are perverse.

• For the High Court (in an appeal against conviction under PC Act): Before upholding a conviction, satisfy yourself that the prosecution has proved demand beyond reasonable doubt. If the trial court's judgment uses words like "probably" or "it appears", that is a red flag – it indicates that the trial court was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Reappreciate the evidence independently. If you find that demand is not proved, acquit the accused. If you acquit, give clear, cogent reasons. Your acquittal will be respected by the Supreme Court if it is a possible view on the evidence.

11.  Court Lines

• "It is a well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act." (Para 11)

• "The proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence and in absence thereof, the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act would not arise." (Para 16)

• "Where prosecution evidence is inconsistent and material witnesses turn hostile, benefit of doubt must necessarily endure to the accused." (Para 16)

• "The prosecution failed to establish the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. On a well-settled principle that for establishing the charge of conspiracy, the pre-requisite is satisfactory evidence to show that there was meeting of mind of the accused so as to hatch up the conspiracy and then to act so as to give effect to the hatched conspiracy." (Para 19)

• "The conspiracy cannot be inferred merely on the basis of suspicion or association and that there must be cogent material indicating meeting of minds between the accused persons." (Para 21)

• "It is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act that the prosecution has withheld the best evidence." (Para 26, quoting Tomaso Bruno)

• "If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." (Para 30, quoting Chandrappa)

• "So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdictted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court." (Para 32, quoting Hakeem Khan)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

• For the accused (public servant) in a corruption trial: Your single most powerful defence is to attack the proof of demand. Demand is the "gravamen" of the offence. If the complainant's testimony is inconsistent, or if the shadow witness turned hostile, or if there is no independent corroboration of the demand, move for acquittal. If the prosecution claims you were part of a conspiracy, show that you were merely following orders or accompanying a senior officer as part of your duty. If the prosecution had a tape recording or other electronic evidence and did not produce it, file an application seeking its production. If it is not produced, argue for an adverse inference under Section 114(g). Also, in your statement under Section 313 CrPC, specifically deny the allegations of demand – your denial, if consistent with the evidence, can create reasonable doubt.

• For the complainant (victim of bribery demand): If you are approached for a bribe, try to record the conversation (audio or video) – this is the best evidence. Ensure that the recording is preserved and handed over to the investigating agency immediately. Also, arrange for a shadow witness (preferably a government official or a person of integrity) to be present at the time of payment. After the trap, ensure that the tainted money is properly recovered and the hands of the accused are subjected to the chemical test (phenolphthalein test). Do not delay in lodging the FIR. Your testimony as a complainant is important, but if you have independent corroboration (recording, shadow witness), the case becomes much stronger.

• For the investigating agency (CBI/ACB): When conducting a trap, always use a shadow witness and, if possible, record the conversation electronically (with proper authorisation). Seize the recording device immediately after the trap and maintain a proper chain of custody. Ensure that all accused persons are properly charged – if multiple persons are involved in a conspiracy, charge all of them with conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) in addition to substantive offences. Do not charge only the subordinates with conspiracy while leaving the senior officer out – that makes the conspiracy charge illogical. In the chargesheet, clearly articulate the role of each accused in the demand, acceptance, and conspiracy. If a witness turns hostile, consider whether to declare them hostile under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, but be aware that their examination-in-chief remains on record and may be used by the defence.

• For the trial judge: In a corruption case, when evaluating the evidence, do not use words like "probably" or "it appears" unless you are discussing a point of fact that is not in dispute. When recording a conviction, state clearly that the guilt has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt". If you are unsure, give the benefit of doubt to the accused. Pay close attention to the proof of demand – examine the complainant's testimony, the shadow witness's testimony, and any electronic evidence. If the prosecution has withheld best evidence (like a recording), draw an adverse inference and consider whether the remaining evidence is sufficient. If the principal accused is not charged with conspiracy but the subordinates are, seriously question the conspiracy charge – it may be inherently contradictory.