Raj HC upholds conviction of JVVNL Assistant Engineer in ACB trap case, says electronic evidence can prove bribery even if complainant turns hostile

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the conviction of a Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) Assistant Engineer and a private individual in an Anti-Corruption Bureau trap case, holding that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be established through electronic and circumstantial evidence even if the complainant later turns hostile.

Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur delivered the ruling while deciding S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1372/2019, Prithvilal Meena vs State of Rajasthan, filed by the accused challenging their conviction recorded by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota.

The appellants had challenged the judgment dated July 6, 2019 passed in Sessions Case No. 10/2016 whereby Prithvilal Meena, an Assistant Engineer with the electricity department, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC, while Hemraj @ Foru was convicted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC.

According to the prosecution, on February 1, 2016, complainants Kailash Meena and Ramphool Meena submitted a written complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bundi alleging that the Assistant Engineer had demanded illegal gratification in connection with a penalty imposed during inspection of electricity meters installed at their premises.

It was alleged that during the inspection, the officer verbally imposed a VCR penalty of about ₹80,000 and subsequently demanded money for settling the matter. Acting on the complaint, the ACB verified the demand and organized a trap on February 2, 2016.

During the trap proceedings, the complainant was given ₹5,500 treated with phenolphthalein powder. The prosecution alleged that the bribe amount was ultimately accepted by co-accused Hemraj @ Foru on the instructions of the Assistant Engineer. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal, the ACB team entered the office and recovered the tainted money from the possession of Hemraj, and the phenolphthalein test returned positive.

During the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses including the complainants, shadow witnesses, trap officers, and officials from the electricity department. However, some witnesses including the complainant partly turned hostile during cross-examination.

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court had wrongly convicted them despite the complainants not supporting the prosecution case. It was submitted that the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved and that the conviction was based on conjectures and surmises.

The defence further contended that the sanction for prosecution had not been properly granted and that the evidence regarding voice recording and recovery was unreliable.

Opposing the appeal, the Public Prosecutor argued that although some witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution case was corroborated by other reliable evidence including digital voice recordings of the conversations relating to the demand of bribe and the trap proceedings conducted by the ACB.

After hearing the parties, the Court examined the legal requirements for offences under Sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and reiterated that proof of demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Act.

The Court observed that demand can be proved not only through direct testimony but also through circumstantial or electronic evidence. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court noted that conviction can be sustained even if the complainant turns hostile, provided the demand and acceptance of bribe are otherwise established.

In the present case, the Court found that the prosecution had produced voice recordings and transcripts of conversations showing the demand for illegal gratification and instructions for payment through a middleman. The electronic evidence was supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and was duly proved during trial.

The Court also noted that the tainted amount was recovered from the co-accused immediately after the recorded conversation and both accused were present at the spot during the trap proceedings, forming a complete chain of circumstances pointing to their involvement.

Rejecting the defence arguments, the Court held that once the foundational facts of demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money are proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act operates against the accused.

The Court further observed that the appellants had even declined to provide voice samples for comparison during investigation, which permitted drawing an adverse inference against them.

Holding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence, the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction.

The criminal appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title
Prithvilal Meena vs State of Rajasthan

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1372/2019

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur

Date of Order
09 March 2026

Advocates
For the Appellants:
Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni
Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma

For the Respondent:
Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor

Judgments / Legal Principles Relied Upon
Demand for illegal gratification can be proved through electronic or circumstantial evidence; conviction can be sustained even if complainant turns hostile where other reliable evidence establishes demand and acceptance under the Prevention of Corruption Act.