Mere Presence at Bribe Acceptance Insufficient to Prove Criminal Conspiracy

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: