Supreme Court Restores Acquittal of Assistant Commissioner of Labour in ACB Trap Case

The appellant, who is also the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, was accused of demanding Rs. 9,000 as a bribe from a labour contractor for renewal of licences under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) allegedly trapped him while accepting Rs. 3,000. The Trial Court acquitted him after finding the prosecution’s evidence unreliable. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed the acquittal on 8 July 2011 and convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The defence contended that the complainant had planted the tainted notes in the drawer while the officer briefly left for the toilet and that there was no proof of demand or acceptance. The hand-wash test was negative. The defence witnesses, including a union president and an advocate, corroborated that the complainant was alone in the chamber. The State argued that circumstantial evidence and recovery were sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Issue Raised: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal by reappreciating evidence without establishing demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt.

SC’s Decision: The Double Bench of the Apex Court allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal. It held that the High Court erred in interfering with a well-reasoned acquittal without demonstrating perversity in the Trial Court’s findings. The apex court reaffirmed that mere recovery of money or suspicion cannot substitute proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The complainant’s testimony suffered serious inconsistencies regarding the date and person named in the complaint. No independent witness saw the alleged demand or payment, and the key mediator was kept outside the office during the trap. The appellant’s hand-wash test turned negative (Negative Phenolphthalein Test), and prosecution failed to show physical handling of the tainted money. Defence witnesses gave consistent and independent accounts showing the complainant’s access to the office when the officer was away.

The Court reiterated from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) that appellate interference is limited unless the Trial Court’s view is perverse. The Court observed that the High Court misconstrued the Contract Labour Rules, and the officer was within his authority to inspect registers before renewing licences.

The Supreme Court thus set aside the conviction and directed that the appellant’s bail bonds be discharged.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below