“Double-Presumption” Fortified: Supreme Court Tightens Proof Requirements in Corruption-Trap Cases
Commentary on M. Sambasiva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 INSC 868

1. Introduction

M. Sambasiva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh is a watershed decision where the Supreme Court of India re-emphasised the sanctity of the presumption of innocence – “the double presumption” – when an accused stands acquitted by the trial court. Reversing the High Court’s conviction of an Assistant Administrative Officer (United India Insurance) and his brother under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court laid down stringent directives on how demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved, the limits of inferential reasoning, and the caution to be exercised while overturning an acquittal.

Key Players

• Appellant (A-1): M. Sambasiva Rao – Assistant Administrative Officer, United India Insurance.
• Accused 2 (deceased): N. Govindarao Naidu – Regional Manager, Insurance Company.
• Accused 3: M. Venkata Siva Naga Prasad – appellant’s brother, businessman.
• Complainant: T. Kotireddy (PW-1) – nominee’s relative pursuing an accident-policy claim.
• Investigating Agency: CBI (PW-12 being the trap-laying officer).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s 2015 judgment that had converted acquittal into conviction, and restored the trial court’s 2005 acquittal. Critical findings include:

• The prosecution failed to prove actual demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
• Reliance on conjectures — e.g., adverse inference from an un-explained phone call, colour of the seized shirt, phenolphthalein transfer to liquor carton — was impermissible.
• Presence of the Superintendent of Police (SP) at the trap, absent in records but revealed via tour diary, fatally undermined credibility.
• High Court’s approach to minor inconsistencies while ignoring “glaring contradictions” amounted to perversity.
• When two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail, especially after an acquittal (reinforcing double presumption of innocence).

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

1. Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 – Five-Judge Bench clarified that proof of demand and acceptance is sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) P.C. Act. The Court reproduced para 88 of Neeraj Dutta and applied it as the governing yardstick.
2. D. Velayutham v. State, (2015) 12 SCC 348 – recognised “constructive receipt” in bribe cases but only when foundational facts are clear. Used by prosecution; the Court distinguished it, noting absence of foundational facts here.
3. Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 – reiterated restraint on appellate interference with acquittal; served as direct authority for restoring trial court’s view.
4. Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine 1038 – echoed that courts must lean towards the accused where reasonable doubt exists; cited to buttress benefit-of-doubt principle.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Demand not Proved: The only eye-witness to demand was PW-1. No “pre-trap verification witness” heard it; hence demand rested on uncorroborated testimony.
• Conspiracy Inference Unsustainable: A single unexplained phone call could not establish conspiracy; adverse inference for not speaking about the call would violate Article 20(3).
• Material Contradictions:
  • White shirt seized turned out moss-green before court.
  • First mediator’s report never applied phenolphthalein to whisky carton; yet post-trap test positive.
  • SP’s concealed presence suggested fabrication.
• Double Presumption of Innocence: Once acquitted, an accused enjoys a reinforced presumption. The High Court was obliged to show perversity in trial court’s view – it failed.
• Self-incrimination Safeguard: Drawing adverse inference from silence on phone-call content offends Article 20(3).

3.3 Potential Impact

1. Higher Evidentiary Threshold in Trap Cases: Investigating agencies must ensure independent corroboration of demand before trap; mere phone logs or untested inferences won’t suffice.
2. Documentation & Chain-of-Custody Vigilance: Discrepancies in mediator reports, colour of seized articles, or concealed presence of senior officers can vitiate the case.
3. Appeals Against Acquittal Become Tougher: High Courts will need to expressly show how the trial court view is “perverse” before reversing. Routine re-appreciation is insufficient.
4. Limiting Constructive Receipt Doctrine: The decision implicitly narrows its use, stressing foundational facts.
5. Operational Changes for CBI/ACB: Expect stricter SOPs on trap authorisation, pre-trap verification, videotaping, inventory of tainted articles, and transparent involvement of senior officers.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

a) “Double Presumption of Innocence”

When a trial court acquits an accused, two layers of presumption operate: (i) the original presumption that every accused is innocent until proved guilty; and (ii) an additional presumption arising from the fact that a competent court, after full trial, found no guilt. An appellate court must therefore be slow to disturb such acquittal.

b) “Phenolphthalein Trap”

A common technique where currency notes are coated with phenolphthalein powder. If the recipient handles them, the powder on his hands turns pink in sodium-carbonate solution, indicating contact. However, if the powder was never applied to a surface (e.g., whisky carton) its later detection suggests contamination or fabrication.

c) “Constructive Receipt”

A principle where a co-accused who orchestrates the bribe but does not physically receive it can still be convicted if facts show he exercised control over its receipt. The Supreme Court here signalled that constructive receipt cannot be presumed without a solid factual substrate.

d) Article 20(3) – Right against Self-Incrimination

No person accused of an offence can be compelled to be a witness against himself. Hence, silence on the contents of a private phone call cannot attract adverse inference in criminal prosecution.

5. Conclusion

M. Sambasiva Rao fortifies longstanding principles: demand and acceptance are indispensable; speculation or procedural shortcuts cannot replace proof; and reversing an acquittal demands heightened judicial circumspection. The decision will resonate in future corruption-trap litigations, compelling investigative agencies to maintain impeccable standards and Courts to anchor conviction on solid, corroborated evidence. Ultimately, the judgment is a robust reminder that, in criminal jurisprudence, liberty is paramount and doubt – when reasonable – must tilt the scales in favour of the accused.