More than three decades after a bribery trap unfolded in Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the conviction of a former excise constable while trimming his prison sentence, citing his advanced age and the time already spent behind bars.
A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale declined to interfere with the finding that Raj Bahadur Singh had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. However, the Court decided to ease the punishment imposed earlier, noting that the convict—now about 75 years old—had already undergone a short spell in custody.
The 1990 Trap
The case traces back to June 1990 in Uttarakhand’s Udham Singh Nagar district, where Singh served in the Excise Department. The prosecution narrative began with a complaint from Kashmir Singh, who was suspected of producing illicit liquor.
According to investigators, an excise raid was carried out in the complainant’s village on June 16 that year. During the operation, the officer allegedly forced the complainant to sign certain papers and demanded ₹500 to avoid sending a challan to court.
Two days later, the complainant approached the vigilance authorities. Acting swiftly, officials prepared a trap. Five ₹100 notes were coated with phenolphthalein powder and handed to the complainant before a meeting was arranged at a restaurant in Khatima.
When the exchange allegedly took place on June 19, the trap team moved in. The marked notes were recovered from the officer, and a chemical test—where the accused’s hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution—turned the liquid pink, indicating contact with the powder.
Conviction Stands
Following investigation, charges were filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A trial court in 2006 convicted the officer, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment for the bribery offence and two years for criminal misconduct, along with fines. The Uttarakhand High Court later upheld the verdict in 2012.
Before the apex court, the defence attempted to cast doubt on the prosecution’s story, arguing that the complainant had falsely implicated the officer to escape legal trouble over illegal liquor production. It also pointed to supposed inconsistencies in witness statements and suggested the trap had been staged.
The Court was unconvinced.
Judges noted that the testimonies of the complainant and an independent shadow witness aligned on key details—specifically the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The bench also dismissed the argument that the shadow witness was biased merely because he knew the complainant.
Missing Currency Notes Argument Rejected
Another defence claim centred on the absence of the tainted currency notes during the trial. The Court refused to consider the argument, pointing out that the issue had never been raised in earlier proceedings.
Records from the trap operation, including the panchnama and witness accounts, clearly documented the recovery of the notes and the positive chemical test, the bench observed.
The Court also upheld the rejection of a defence witness—the restaurant owner who claimed no raid took place at his establishment. Earlier courts had reasoned that the witness, being a local resident running a small business in the same town as the accused, might have been hesitant to testify against a government official.
Sentence Reduced, Conviction Intact
While the conviction remained untouched, the Court took a more lenient view on punishment. Judges highlighted the extraordinary passage of time since the offence—over 35 years—and the appellant’s current age.
The bench noted that Singh was around 40 when the incident occurred and has since reached his mid-seventies. Considering that he had already spent about two months and 24 days in custody, the Court modified the sentence accordingly while keeping the conviction on record.
The ruling closes a case that lingered in the justice system for decades—one where the Court ultimately balanced accountability with the realities of time and age.
