“Fortifying the Triple-Test”: Supreme Court Clarifies the Evidentiary Threshold in Anti-Corruption Trap Cases

1. Introduction

Case: Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 655.

Court & Coram: Supreme Court of India, Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. (Criminal Appellate jurisdiction).

The judgment reviews a two-decade-old prosecution arising from an Anti-Corruption Bureau (“ACB”) trap conducted in August 2003. The appellant, a Revenue Inspector, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of ₹2,000 from a drought-affected farmer seeking compensation for withered trees. Both the Special Court (2008) and the Telangana High Court (2024) accepted the prosecution version, primarily on the recovery of tainted currency notes from a pouch on the officer’s motorcycle and invoked the statutory presumption under s. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).

On further appeal, the Supreme Court has overturned the conviction, building a robust doctrinal framework for assessing trap cases. Central to the decision is the articulation—now elevated to an unequivocal precedent—of a “Triple-Test” that prosecutors must satisfy:

• Verified demand before laying the trap,
• Presence of a shadow/independent witness throughout the transaction, and
• A successful phenolphthalein (pH) test evidencing physical contact with bribe money.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant with benefit of doubt, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the indispensable element of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. Key findings include:

• Material contradictions existed in the testimonies of PW1 (complainant) & PW2 (independent mediator) vis-à-vis the alleged demand and placement of cash.
• The phenolphthalein hand-wash of the accused was negative; the currency was discovered in a motorcycle pouch untouched by the accused.
• The investigating officer (PW7) failed to verify the genuineness of the demand prior to the trap, violating established practice.
• Because demand remained unproven, the presumption under s. 20 PC Act was inapplicable (relying on Om Parkash, 2006).

“When the Court is to choose between the version proffered by the prosecution vis-à-vis the defence version, in the face of reasonable doubt towards the prosecution story, the Court should lean in the defence’s favour.” — para 19

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• Mir Mustafa Ali Hashmi v. State of A.P. (2024) – Emphasised the need for prior verification of demand. The Supreme Court echoes this and treats it as an indispensable first limb of the Triple-Test.
• Rajesh Gupta v. State (2022) & K. Shantamma v. State of Telangana (2022) – Both quashed convictions for failure to prove demand. They provide jurisprudential scaffolding that demand cannot be inferred merely from recovery.
• Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh (2017) & Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka (2017) – Laid down principles on material contradictions and credibility tests, heavily quoted to disregard inconsistent testimonies.
• Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra (2023) – Applied for the proposition that courts must prefer the defence in the face of reasonable doubt.
• Om Parkash v. State of Haryana (2006) – Authoritatively states that the s. 20 presumption activates only after demand is proved. Adopted verbatim.

Collectively, these cases advance a prosecutorial burden that goes well beyond mere possession of tainted currency. The present judgment synthesises them into a coherent, three-pronged evidentiary rubric.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Failure of the Triple-Test
   a. No prior verification: The IO registered the FIR without any preliminary check on the complainant’s allegations.
   b. Shadow witness inadequacy: PW2 admitted he never entered the room where the demand allegedly occurred; his testimony stemmed from “hearing distance”.
   c. Negative pH result: The phenolphthalein test—a scientific marker of acceptance—was negative on the accused’s hands.
2. Contradictions & Animus
   The complainant and his wife (DW1) offered mutually destructive accounts regarding the sequence of events. Prior altercation between PW1 and the accused suggested possible motive for false implication.
3. Statutory Presumption Rebutted
   Since demand was unproved, the mandatory presumption under s. 20 could not be invoked. Thus, the burden never shifted to the defence.
4. Benefit of Doubt Doctrine
   Aligning with the bed-rock principle of criminal jurisprudence—“proof beyond reasonable doubt”—the Court extended benefit of doubt, thereby safeguarding the presumption of innocence.

3.3 Projected Impact of the Judgment

The ruling is poised to have multifaceted repercussions:

• Investigative Practices: ACB & CBI officers must meticulously document prior verification of demand, ensure continuous presence of a shadow witness and secure positive pH tests; else, prosecutions risk collapse.
• Trial Strategy: Defence counsel will cite the “Triple-Test” as a threshold inquiry, prompting aggressive cross-examination on procedural lapses.
• S. 20 Presumption Curtailment: Courts will exercise greater caution before drawing the statutory presumption, insisting on a sequenced satisfaction—demand, acceptance, recovery.
• Pending & Future Appeals: Numerous convictions under the PC Act (especially pre-2018 amendments) may be revisited where one or more limbs of the Triple-Test were missing.
• Policy Impetus: May lead to updated ACB/CBI Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and training modules emphasising contemporaneous documentation, audio-visual recording of demands, and digital evidence.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 7 PC Act: Punishes a public servant for obtaining or accepting any undue advantage in performance of official duty.
• Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2): Define and penalise “criminal misconduct” by a public servant—specifically illegal gratification or abuse of position.
• Section 20 Presumption: Once demand & acceptance are proved, court must presume the gratification was illegal, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove.
• Phenolphthalein (pH) Test: Tainted notes coated with phenolphthalein powder leave residue that turns pink in alkaline solution. A positive hand wash implicates handling of bribe money.
• Trap Case: A sting-like operation where law-enforcement, after receiving a complaint, sets up monitored payment of bribe to catch the public servant red-handed.
• Shadow Witness: An independent observer who accompanies the complainant during the trap to authenticate each stage.
• Benefit of Doubt: Guiding principle that any reasonable uncertainty in prosecution evidence must favour the accused.

5. Conclusion

Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana crystallises a stricter evidentiary regime for corruption prosecutions based on trap operations. By insisting on verified demand, continuous independent observation, and demonstrable physical acceptance (through a valid pH test), the Court re-aligns investigative techniques with constitutional safeguards of fair trial and presumption of innocence.

The judgment does not dilute India’s anti-corruption resolve; rather, it ensures that convictions are anchored in reliable, scientific, and corroborated evidence—fortifying public confidence in judicial outcomes. Prosecuting agencies must adapt rapidly, or risk seeing carefully laid traps unravel in the appellate corridors of the Supreme Court.