CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus BALJEET SINGH

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus BALJEET SINGH

The acquittal of A2 by the High Court was set aside and the trial court conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 restored because the pre-trap proceedings, testimony of the complainant (PW1), corroboration by the Trap Laying Officer (PW22) and independent witnesses (PW10, PW18), the recovery of the marked notes matching the Handing Over Memo, and the phenolphthalein/hand-wash test together established acceptance by A2 beyond reasonable doubt; however, conspiracy under Section 120B IPC as against A1 and A2 was not established and A1 remained unconvicted; the sentence was reduced from four years to one year considering A2’s age, with fine and default sentence...

Parties
Appellant: Central Bureau of Investigation; Respondent / Accused (a2): Baljeet Singh; Co Accused / Assessing Officer (a1): Arun Kumar Gurjar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 12486 of 2025 / Judgment on Appeal by Supreme Court (decision Dated 10 March 2026)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Corruption, Criminal Conspiracy, Demand and Acceptance of Bribe, Trap Proceedings, Phenolphthalein/hand Wash Test, Corroboration of Witnesses, Modification of Sentence
Criminal Law Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Evidence Corruption Criminal Conspiracy Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Trap Proceedings +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Bureau of Investigation

Appellant

Baljeet Singh

Respondent / Accused (a2)

Arun Kumar Gurjar

Co Accused / Assessing Officer (a1)

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 12486 of 2025 / Judgment on Appeal by Supreme Court (decision Dated 10 March 2026)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was proved between A1 and A2
  2. 2 Whether a demand and acceptance of bribe by A2 (and/or on behalf of A1) was proved
  3. 3 Whether trap and pre-trap proceedings and independent witnesses sufficiently corroborated PW1

Ratio Decidendi

The acquittal of A2 by the High Court was set aside and the trial court conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 restored because the pre-trap proceedings, testimony of the complainant (PW1), corroboration by the Trap Laying Officer (PW22) and independent witnesses (PW10, PW18), the recovery of the marked notes matching the Handing Over Memo, and the phenolphthalein/hand-wash test together established acceptance by A2 beyond reasonable doubt; however, conspiracy under Section 120B IPC as against A1 and A2 was not established and A1 remained unconvicted; the sentence was reduced from four years to one year considering A2’s age, with fine and default sentence...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order of acquittal of respondent/accused Baljeet Singh (A2) by the High Court is set aside
  • Conviction of Baljeet Singh (A2) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 restored (trial court finding)