Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Excise Constable in 1990 Bribery Case, Reduces Sentence as Accused is Now 75 Years

The Supreme Court in Raj Bahadur Singh vs State of Uttarakhand upheld the conviction of an Excise Department constable in a bribery trap case dating back to 1990, while reducing his sentence considering his advanced age and the long passage of time since the offence.

The judgement was delivered on March 13, 2026. The Court concluded that the findings recorded by the trial court and later affirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court were legally sound. It held that there was no reason to interfere with the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The case arose from allegations that Raj Bahadur Singh, who was posted as an excise constable in Udham Singh Nagar district, demanded a bribe of ₹500 from a man involved in the illicit liquor trade.

According to the prosecution, the complainant, Kashmir Singh, had earlier been confronted by excise officials over suspected illegal liquor activities. During a raid conducted in his village on June 16, 1990, the constable allegedly threatened him with legal action unless he paid the demanded amount.

Two days later, on June 18, 1990, the complainant approached the Vigilance Department and lodged a complaint. Acting on the complaint, the vigilance authorities organised a trap to catch the accused while accepting the bribe.

The trap operation took place at a restaurant in Khatima. The complainant handed over five currency notes of ₹100 each, which had been treated with phenolphthalein powder as part of the trap procedure.

Soon after the exchange, vigilance officers conducted a chemical test that turned pink, indicating that the accused had come into contact with the tainted currency notes. A case was subsequently registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the matter proceeded to trial. In March 2006, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000 under Section 7, and two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000 under Section 13(2).

The accused challenged the conviction before the Uttarakhand High Court. However, in April 2012, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the trial court.

Before the Supreme Court, the defence argued that the complainant had falsely implicated the constable due to personal hostility. It also raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the reliability of the trap proceedings.

The Court, however, rejected these arguments. It observed that both the complainant and the shadow witness had consistently supported the prosecution version and that their testimony established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

“The High Court committed no error in upholding the judgment of the trial court and sustaining the conviction,” the bench observed.

While affirming the conviction, the Court took note of the circumstances of the case. It observed that the incident occurred more than three decades ago and that the accused is now around 75 years old.

The Court also noted that he had already spent nearly two months and 24 days in custody during the proceedings.

Taking these factors into account, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the minimum punishment prescribed under law.

The Court modified the punishment to six months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. With this modification, the appeal was disposed of.