Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Upheld- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 4 November 2026
- Bench
- Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 65B
The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of 24 December 2019 were upheld. The appellant must surrender forthwith before the trial court to serve the rest of his sentence; his bail bonds were cancelled and the period already undergone will be set off (paras 12-15).
Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment pronounced on 4 November 2026
Key holdings
- Following Neeraj Dutta, a complainant turning hostile does not by itself defeat a PC Act prosecution; the evidence must be assessed as a whole (paras 7-7.1).
- A complainant who admits writing the complaint and signing the transcript and disc cannot undo that record by a bare denial at trial (paras 10.2-10.3).
- A Section 65-B certificate filed during the trial rather than with the charge-sheet is a curable defect (paras 8.1, 10.5).
- Recovery from the accused's shaving box, the wash results and a forensic report corroborated trap witnesses who did not hear the conversation (para 11.5).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
Appeals in trap cases often rest on two points: the complainant turned hostile, and the Section 65-B certificate came late. This judgment answers both from the trial record. It relies on the complainant's own admissions about his written complaint and the transcript (para 10.3), and on a certificate exhibited during the trial (paras 8, 10.5). The judgment does not separately deal with the objections that no voice sample was taken and that sanction was granted mechanically (paras 3.2-3.3). Compare the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta and, on when and by whom the certificate must be given, Kana Ram, where the Jodhpur Bench refused to act on trap recordings backed by a certificate produced six years late.
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731
Constitution Bench ruling applied by the Court: where the complainant turns hostile, dies or is unavailable, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification may be proved by other oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence (paras 7-7.1). The Court applied it in upholding the conviction although the complainant had resiled (paras 10.2-10.3).
- State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi 2023 INSC 988 2023 INSC 988
Relied on by the Court for the rule that non-production of a Section 65-B certificate is a curable defect and that the certificate may be produced before the trial ends (para 8.1); applied to hold the recordings admissible although the certificate was filed during the trial (para 10.5).
