List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Mere Presence at Bribe Acceptance Insufficient to Prove Criminal Conspiracy

30-Jun-2026

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K. Gaba Etc.

"The conspiracy cannot be inferred merely on the basis of suspicion or association and there must be cogent material indicating meeting of minds between the accused persons."

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K. Gaba Etc. (2026), dismissed the State's appeals against an Allahabad High Court judgment acquitting three Central Excise Inspectors, holding that their mere presence at the time a bribe was allegedly accepted by their superior officer could not, by itself, establish criminal conspiracy.

What was the Background of State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K. Gaba Etc. (2026) Case?

The case arose from a 1995 CBI trap in which Superintendent of Central Excise R.K. Srivastava allegedly demanded Rs. 80,000 as illegal gratification for returning documents seized from a factory.
The prosecution alleged that Inspectors A.K. Gaba, Alok Gupta, and Dushyant Kumar were part of the conspiracy, primarily on the ground that they were present during the alleged demand or acceptance of the bribe.
The trial court convicted the accused for criminal conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
On appeal, the Allahabad High Court reversed the conviction, finding that the prosecution had failed to establish demand, acceptance, and conspiracy.
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged this acquittal before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations?

On inference of criminal conspiracy: The Court held that conspiracy cannot be inferred merely from suspicion or association, and that there must be cogent material indicating a meeting of minds between the accused persons. It clarified that knowledge of indulgence in an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means, is necessary to establish conspiracy, and that the offence is complete only when there is a meeting of minds.
On absence of substantive evidence: The Bench noted that, except for alleging the presence of the respondents at certain places during the relevant period, the prosecution had failed to produce any substantive evidence indicating a prior agreement or concert between the respondents and the principal accused, R.K. Srivastava.
On the principal allegation being confined to one accused: The Court observed that even according to the prosecution's own case, the principal allegation of demand was against R.K. Srivastava alone, and no independent material was brought on record to show that the respondents actively participated in the demand or shared the requisite criminal intent.
On the standard for establishing conspiracy: Relying on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005), the Court reiterated that establishing a charge of conspiracy requires satisfactory evidence of a meeting of minds of the accused to hatch the conspiracy, followed by acts giving effect to it, a standard the prosecution failed to meet.
On withholding of electronic evidence: The Court held that the prosecution's failure to produce a tape recording that allegedly captured the bribe demand justified drawing an adverse inference against it, relying on Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
On failure to prove demand: Since the prosecution failed to establish the factum of demand against the respondents, their acquittal under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as for criminal conspiracy, was held to be valid.

What is Criminal Conspiracy?

About:

Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 defines and prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy, consolidating the erstwhile Sections 120A (definition) and 120B (punishment) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 into a single provision.

Definition [Section 61(1)]:

A criminal conspiracy arises when two or more persons agree, with a common object, to do or cause to be done either an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means.
Such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Proviso: No agreement, except an agreement to commit an offence, amounts to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of the agreement or merely incidental to it.

Punishment [Section 61(2)]:

Conspiracy to commit a grave offence: Where a person conspires to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards, and the Sanhita makes no express provision for punishing such conspiracy, the conspirator shall be punished as if he had abetted that offence.
Conspiracy to commit other offences: In all other cases, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or fine, or both.

Differences between Section 61 BNS and Sections 120A–120B IPC:

Aspect	Section 120A & 120B IPC	Section 61 BNS
Structure	Split into two separate sections — 120A (definition) and 120B (punishment)	Consolidated into a single section — 61(1) for definition, 61(2) for punishment
Common object	Used the phrase "agree to do, or cause to be done," without expressly using "common object"	Expressly states "agree with the common object to do, or cause to be done"
Limbs of definition	Listed as unlettered numbered limbs (1) and (2)	Listed as lettered clauses (a) "an illegal act" and (b) "an act which is not illegal by illegal means"
Proviso (overt act requirement)	Present under Section 120A, requiring an act besides the agreement, except where the agreement is to commit an offence	Retained in substance under Section 61(1)
Explanation	Present under Section 120A, clarifying that it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate or incidental object	Retained in substance under Section 61(1)
Punishment for grave offences	Section 120B(1) — punishable as if the person had abetted the offence, where the conspiracy is to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment of two years or upwards	Section 61(2)(a) — same scheme retained, with explicit use of "imprisonment for life"
Punishment for other conspiracies	Section 120B(2) — imprisonment of either description up to six months, or fine, or both	Section 61(2)(b) — same punishment retained
Continuity of precedent	Judicial interpretation developed under IPC (e.g., State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu)	Continues to apply, since substance of the provision is unchanged

Criminal Law

No Voice Sample, No S.65B Certificate

30-Jun-2026

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)

Anil Markende & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

"In the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and in the absence of any voice sample or FSL report, the voice recording cannot be relied upon."

Justice Rajani Dubey

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Rajani Dubey of the Chhattisgarh High Court, in the case of Anil Markende & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026), acquitted two public servants convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, as the recorded conversations were inadmissible without a Section 65-B certificate and voice sample authentication.

What was the Background of Anil Markende & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026) Case?

The complainant's wife's salary had been withheld for six months, following which appellant No.2 allegedly asked the complainant to pay Rs. 5,000 as illegal gratification on behalf of appellant No.1 for release of the salary.
On instructions of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the complainant recorded conversations with the accused, and during a trap conducted on 12.10.2010, tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of appellant No.1.
The Investigating Officer admitted that no voice samples of either the accused or the complainant had been obtained, and prosecution witnesses admitted that the recorded conversation was unclear since multiple persons' voices were audible.
The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide judgment dated 08.09.2017, and challenged the conviction before the High Court.

What were the Court's Observations?

On absence of Section 65-B certificate: The Court observed that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 63(4)(c) of BSA) had been produced in respect of the electronic record, rendering the voice recording inadmissible.
On absence of voice sample and FSL report: The Court held that in the absence of any voice sample or FSL report, the recorded conversation could not be relied upon to establish demand of illegal gratification.
On identification and reliability of the recording: The Court noted that the voice recordings were identified solely on the complainant's version, another person allegedly involved in the conversation had neither been cited nor examined, and the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out since the recorder remained with the complainant for several days before seizure.
On the Delhi High Court precedent: The Court referred to Romesh Sharma v. State (Delhi High Court), which discussed the conditions governing admissibility of tape-recorded conversations, including proper identification of the speaker's voice, proof of accuracy, and exclusion of tampering.
On proof of demand: Relying on settled precedents, the Court reiterated that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to sustain conviction.

What is Section 63(4)(c) of BSA?

Certificate Requirement for Electronic Records:

Where a statement is sought to be given in evidence under Section 63 (electronic records as evidence), a certificate must accompany the electronic record at each instance it is submitted for admission.
The certificate must identify the electronic record and describe the manner in which it was produced.
It must give particulars of the device involved in producing the record, sufficient to show that it was produced by a computer or communication device as referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 63(3).
It must deal with the conditions mentioned in Section 63(2), and must be signed by a person in charge of the computer/communication device or the management of the relevant activities, along with an expert, where appropriate.
For this purpose, it is sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the certificate, in the form specified in the Schedule to the Act.