Facts: The complainant (PW1), a partner in a firm, alleged that during income tax assessment proceedings, A1 (Joint Commissioner) and A2 (Inspector) demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs. A1 was the Assessing Officer, and A2 was his subordinate. Following a complaint to the CBI, a trap was organized. A2 was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 2 lakhs in A1's office. While the trap was successful and the phenolphthalein test turned pink for A2's hands and clothes, there was no direct evidence of A1 making a demand or accepting the money. The Trial Court convicted both under Section 120B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The High Court later acquitted both, citing a lack of proof regarding criminal conspiracy and the initial demand.
Procedural Posture: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appealed the High Court's acquittal of A2 (Baljeet Singh) to the Supreme Court. A prior appeal against the acquittal of A1 (Arun Kumar Gurjar) had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the acquittal of a co-accused on the charge of conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) necessitates the acquittal of the other accused for the substantive offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, and whether the testimony of "trap witnesses" is sufficient for conviction despite minor inconsistencies.
Holding: The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal. It upheld the acquittal of A2 regarding the conspiracy charge but restored the conviction for the substantive offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. The court modified the sentence from four years to one year of rigorous imprisonment due to the respondent's age.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that substantive charges under the PC Act can stand independently of a conspiracy charge if the demand and acceptance by an individual are proved. Although A2 claimed he was acting for A1, his own position of influence as an Inspector involved in the assessment was sufficient to establish his culpability. The Court emphasized that there is no "inflexible rule" to discard the testimony of trap witnesses or "hostile" witnesses if their statements are creditworthy and corroborated by circumstances like the recovery of marked currency and positive chemical tests. The Court relied on "Basawan Singh" and "Neeraj Dutta" to affirm that the conduct of the accused (remaining mum or turning pale upon being caught) serves as relevant corroborative evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.