M SAMBASIVA RAO versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1183 · Decided: 17-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1183 : 2025 INSC 868
M Sambasiva Rao 
v. 
The State of Andhra Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2017)
17 July 2025
[Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-accused 
no.1 u/s.120B, IPC and ss.7, 13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 by reversing the finding of acquittal of the 
Trial Court.
Headnotes†
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 11, 12, 13(2)  
r/w13(1)(d) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Demand-and-
trap proceedings  – Evidentiary standard to prove – PW1-
complainant submitted the insurance claim and requested 
the appellant-accused no.1 (Administrative Officer in the 
Insurance Company) for early disposal of the claim – As per 
the prosecution, the appellant demanded bribe for himself 
and accused no.2-Regional Manager for settlement of the 
claim – Complaint made – Trap set up – Cash, whisky bottle 
and the shirt of accused no.3 (appellant’s brother) were 
seized – To prove criminal conspiracy between the appellant 
and accused no.2, the prosecution relied on the call made 
between them – Trial Court acquitted the accused persons – 
High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant 
and accused no.3 (accused no.2 passed away during the 
pendency of the appeal in the High Court) – Interference  
with:
Held: 1.1 Prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the 
demand of and acceptance of the bribe in the trap laid by PW12 
(Inspector, CBI) – Present is a case of a fabrication, attempted 
frame-up and botched-up trap with serious lapses committed by 
the investigative agency – There are glaring contradictions in the 
* Author
1184
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
prosecution evidence which cumulatively shake the foundations 
of the prosecution case. [Paras 31, 38]
1.2 High Court itself relied on inferences and conjectures 
alone – Even if the factum of phone call, as alleged, having 
been made stands accepted, the contents of the conversation 
are not available at all – Also, the protection of Art.20(3) of 
the Constitution would apply and the appellant could not be 
compelled to disclose the nature and content of the conversation, 
assuming it happened – Further, mere fact that accused no.3 
is the appellant’s brother would not lead to a presumption in 
law that the money taken by him was meant for the appellant 
and that too, pursuant to demand being made by the appellant. 
[Para 28, 37]
1.3 Moreover, on facts, the allegation of demand of bribe, as 
projected by the prosecution, is shrouded in a cloud of dubiety – 
Mere fact that accused no.3 is the appellant’s brother would not 
lead to a presumption in law that the money taken by him was 
meant for the appellant and that too, pursuant to demand being 
made by the appellant – Further, except for PW1, no other witness/
person was privy to the demand made to the complainant by the 
appellant – This does not satisfy the requirement that 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, which has not been done in the present 
case – Thus, the procedure of the trap case itself from the very 
inceptual stage suffers from serious legal lacuna, which cannot 
be now overcome – For, the purpose of this requirement is that 
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 – On to the next stage of 
actual laying of trap, there also the appellant was nowhere in the 
picture – The prosecution’s effort of still trying to bring him under 
the ambit and scope of the corruption net clearly has not succeeded 
in the circumstances. [Paras 29, 31, 37]
1.4 Furthermore, in a case where the accused persons were 
acquitted by the Trial Court, there is a double presumption of 
innocence which accrues in their favour – Hence, it was all the more 
important for the High Court to have provided cogent reasoning 
for disturbing the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. 
[Paras 34, 35] 
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 
1185
M Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
1.5 Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Impugned Judgment set 
aside and that of the Trial Court is restored – Appellant acquitted. 
[Paras 38, 39]
Case Law Cited
Neeraj

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.