J&K High Court Acquits Clerk Convicted Under PC Act, Finds Trial Court Recorded Conviction Despite Its Own Finding That Demand and Acceptance Not Proved
Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside a two-year sentence against a Block Development Office clerk, holding the trial court's verdict was perverse and internally contradictory on every essential ingredient of the corruption charge.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has acquitted Habibullah Kumar, who served as Incharge Establishment Clerk in the office of the Block Development Officer, Larkipora Shahabad, Anantnag, of offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly, pronounced the judgment on 21 August 2026 in CrlA(S) No. 11/2025, setting aside the conviction and two-year sentence imposed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, Anantnag on 21 August 2025. The High Court found that the trial court had, in its own paragraphs, recorded that demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved, yet proceeded to convict the appellant — a contradiction that rendered the judgment perverse and unsustainable in law.
The Trap Proceedings and Trial Court Conviction
On 10 September 2009, complainant PW Bashir Ahmad Dar lodged a written complaint before the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir (VOK), alleging that the appellant had demanded Rs. 300 per head from him and five other Helpers posted in the BDO office, in connection with preparing arrears bills consequent to their in-situ promotions with effect from 1 November 2008. The total amount allegedly demanded was Rs. 1,800.
On the basis of the complaint, FIR No. 25/2009 was registered with Police Station Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act and Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code. A trap team headed by PW-14, Inspector Farooq Hussain Mir, was constituted. PW-2, Nazir Ahmad Lone, Senior Assistant, Commercial Tax Department, Srinagar, was associated as the independent shadow witness.
During the trap on 10 September 2009, the complainant entered the appellant's office room. After a brief exchange, the appellant allegedly demanded and accepted Rs. 1,800 in tainted currency notes and placed the money in the back pocket of his trousers. The shadow witness is stated to have watched through the window. After the complainant signalled, the trap team rushed in, recovered the tainted money from the appellant's back pocket, and the sodium carbonate wash of his hands and trouser pocket turned pink. The appellant was arrested on the spot.
After sanction for prosecution via Government Order No. 19-GAD(Vig.) of 2010 dated 29 March 2010, the challan was laid before the trial court. Charges were framed on 13 December 2010. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, including the complainant, the shadow witness, members of the trap team, the five Helpers, the BDO, and another office official. The appellant's statement under Section 342 of the J&K Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24 February 2024. No defence evidence was led. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 21,000, with a further six months' simple imprisonment in default of payment.
Grounds of Appeal and the Legal Framework
Before the High Court, the appellant challenged the conviction on four principal grounds: that his Section 342 statement had not been properly recorded because all documents and evidence were not put to him; that the prosecution had failed to prove acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; that the trial court's findings were perverse; and that the shadow witness had not witnessed the actual bribe transaction, making it impermissible to convict on the sole uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.
Justice Dhar identified three ingredients that the prosecution must establish under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act: first, an initial demand of illegal gratification by the accused; second, demand and voluntary acceptance of tainted money during the trap proceedings; and third, recovery of tainted money from the accused.
Initial Demand: Complainant Contradicted by His Own Associates
On the first ingredient — initial demand — the evidence unravelled sharply against the prosecution.
The complainant, PW Bashir Ahmad Dar, stated in his examination-in-chief that each of the six employees had agreed to contribute Rs. 300. But in cross-examination he contradicted his own written complaint, EXTP-1, by stating that he had not collected Rs. 300 from each of his five associates.
The five associates — PWs Deedar Singh, Manzoor Ahmad Mir, Mushtaq Ahmad Ganai, Shameem Ahmad Naikoo, and Abdul Samad Parray — were categorical. They stated that neither did the appellant ever demand any money from them, nor did they contribute any share of the alleged bribe. They produced photocopies of their initial statements to VOK, in which they had already told the Vigilance Organization that they would not contribute and that no demand had been made of them. PW Manzoor Ahmad Mir went further, stating that there was a land dispute ongoing between the complainant and the appellant.
The BDO, PW Gul Mohammad Ashraf Jalali, confirmed that there was no budgetary allocation for the arrears until 9 September. He described the appellant as an honest person and the complainant as short-tempered, adding that he had tried to get rid of the complainant and that the complainant wanted his brother and wife adjusted as daily wagers. PW Mohammad Yaqoob Bhat, declared hostile, nonetheless confirmed in cross-examination that the appellant's character was good.
The High Court found that in light of this evidence, the initial demand of bribe was “highly doubtful.” All five officials on whose behalf the bribe was allegedly collected denied any demand, and the complainant had contradicted the contents of his own complaint. The Court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in Mir Mustafa Ali Hashmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 489, which requires the Trap Laying Officer to independently verify the alleged demand before initiating trap proceedings, including by recording telephonic conversations between the decoy and the suspect.
Inspector Farooq Hussain Mir, the Trap Laying Officer, could not furnish specific details of any verification. He could not even remember whether the complainant and the accused belonged to the same village. The Court found that the VOK had proceeded directly from the complaint to registering the FIR and laying the trap without any prior verification, which assumed great adverse significance given the established discord between the two.
Trap Transaction: Shadow Witness Did Not Witness It
On the second ingredient, the evidence of the shadow witness, PW Nazir Ahmad Lone, proved equally damaging to the prosecution. He stated that he stood outside the room near the window and did not enter. In cross-examination he conceded that nobody had prevented him from entering, and he clarified explicitly that he did not see the acceptance or demand of bribe money. He heard an exchange of conversation but had no knowledge of its content. He also stated that when the trap team entered the room, the appellant was shouting that he had been falsely implicated.
The other members of the trap team, in their cross-examination, uniformly confirmed that they did not watch the exchange of money as they were sitting outside the room.
This left only the complainant, PW Bashir Ahmad Dar, as the sole witness to the alleged transaction. The High Court examined whether his uncorroborated testimony could sustain a conviction.
Justice Dhar referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 3 SCC 90, which held that a trap witness may be treated as an interested witness and that a court may refuse to act on uncorroborated testimony where circumstances justify it, though conviction on such testimony is permissible if the court is satisfied the witness is a witness of truth.
The Court also drew on its own recent decision in Falil ur Rehman v. UT of J&K (CrlA(S) No. 01/2020, decided on 30 June 2026), which synthesised the ratio from M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala, (1995) 3 SCC 351, Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of MP, (1995) 5 SCC 320, and the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731. That decision held that “there is no abstract rule that uncorroborated testimony of a bribe giver should not be accepted” but that the complainant is a partisan witness whose evidence must be analysed with care, with corroboration assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Applying those principles to the present facts, the Court found the complainant to be a highly motivated and biased witness. He had contradicted his own complaint, his five associates had denied any demand or contribution, the BDO had described him as short-tempered and a person who tried to get his relatives engaged as daily wagers, and PW Manzoor Ahmad Mir had spoken of a land dispute. The appellant had therefore probablised his defence of inimical relations.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant regarding demand and acceptance of bribe during the trap proceedings could not be relied upon.
Recovery Alone Insufficient; Appellant's Explanation Plausible
The appellant's explanation was that the complainant had forcibly thrust the tainted money into his trouser pocket while he was objecting, and that the Vigilance officials then apprehended him. The shadow witness's evidence that the appellant was shouting about false implication at the moment of apprehension was treated by the High Court as conduct admissible in evidence and consistent with the defence.
Justice Dhar held that mere recovery of trap money from the appellant's pocket, standing alone, was insufficient to prove criminal misconduct under the PC Act, particularly when the accused had tendered a plausible explanation and when demand and acceptance had not been independently established.
Perversity of the Trial Court Judgment
The High Court identified specific internal contradictions in the trial court's judgment that rendered it perverse on its face.
In paragraph 29 of the trial court judgment, the Special Judge had recorded that there was no oral or documentary evidence to establish that the accused had made a demand of bribe before the complaint was filed, and had further observed that the prosecution's evidence on demand of bribe from the accused was unproven. Yet the trial court had then reasoned that this did not weaken the prosecution case if the trap proceedings otherwise demonstrated demand. Justice Dhar held that position to be contrary to settled law: once prosecution fails to prove initial demand, the entire trap proceedings become illegal and proof of demand during the trap loses significance.
The trial court had also recorded, at several places, that the shadow witness confirmed seeing the physical exchange of currency notes. The High Court found this to be a patent misreading: PW Nazir Ahmad Lone had stated in terms that he did not see the exchange of money.
In paragraphs 39 and 43 of the trial court judgment, the Special Judge had himself noted the lack of synchronisation between PW-1 and PW-2 on the central issue, and observed that the shadow witness's absence from inside the room undermined the prosecution's narrative of transparency. In paragraph 44, the trial court had recorded that the statements of the five associates significantly diluted the prosecution's claim. In paragraph 48, the trial court had recorded that demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved on the facts. In paragraph 52, it had noted the absence of unimpeachable evidence of tacit demand and voluntary acceptance.
Despite all these findings in its own judgment, the trial court had recorded a conviction. The High Court described the result as findings that were “not only inconsistent and contrary to each other” but that also suffered from perversity.
Outcome
Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside the impugned judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, Anantnag dated 21 August 2025. The charge sheet against the appellant was dismissed. Habibullah Kumar was acquitted of all charges under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. His bail bonds and surety bonds were directed to stand discharged. The trial court record along with a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent back.