#ACB trap

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that the recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 bearing phenolphthalein residue, coupled with a credible complainant’s allegation of demand for gratification, constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence to uphold rejection of discharge under Section 227 CrPC. This sets a clear precedent for ACB trap cases where forensic evidence and testimonial corroboration jointly satisfy the threshold for trial, denying accused the early exit of discharge.

Bombay High Court refuses leave to appeal in an ACB trap case, ruling that uncorroborated testimony, inconsistent panchanamas, and absence of call detail records (CDR) fail to establish demand beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PCA. The judgment reinforces that prosecution must meet a high evidentiary standard, particularly in bribery cases involving public servants.

Bombay HC's Aurangabad Bench dismissed the State's appeal, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a direct bribe demand or acceptance under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also invalidated the sanction due to conflicting opinions, setting a precedent for stricter evidence requirements in corruption cases against public servants.