Srinagar, August 21, KDC: Holding that the failure of the prosecution to establish an initial demand renders trap proceedings illegal and that mere recovery of tainted currency cannot sustain a graft conviction, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has acquitted a former establishment clerk of the Block Development Office (BDO), Larkipora, setting aside his conviction recorded by the trial court in a 17-year-old bribery case.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed a criminal appeal filed by Habibullah Kumar, setting aside the judgment dated August 21, 2025, passed by the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Anantnag. The trial court had convicted Kumar under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years of simple imprisonment alongside a fine of ₹21,000.
The case originated on September 10, 2009, when complainant Bashir Ahmad Dar lodged a complaint with the Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK), alleging that the appellant demanded ₹300 per head from six helpers in the BDO office Larkipora (totaling ₹1,800) for preparing their in-situ promotion arrears bills. A trap was laid, and ₹1,800 in tainted currency was recovered from the appellant’s trouser pocket.
Setting aside the conviction, Justice Dhar pointed out glaring contradictions in the prosecution case. The Court noted that all five fellow helpers examined as prosecution witnesses turned hostile and categorically testified that they never contributed any bribe money, nor did the appellant ever demand money from them, reported news agency Kashmir Dot Com.
Furthermore, the Block Development Officer testified that the appellant was an honest official, while characterizing the complainant as an aggressive individual who held grudges over unrelated administrative and personal disputes.
Scrutinizing the trap proceedings, the Bench observed that the trap laying officer failed to conduct any independent pre-trap verification regarding the genuineness of the complaint or the previous discord between the parties, directly violating Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Mir Mustafa Ali Hashmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Court held that the uncorroborated testimony of an interested complainant could not form the basis of a criminal conviction, especially when the shadow witness admitted in cross-examination that he never entered the room and did not see any exchange or demand of bribe money.
“Once the prosecution fails to prove that there was initial demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant, the whole trap proceedings become illegal. Therefore, proof of demand and acceptance of bribe during trap proceedings loses its significance… Mere recovery of trap money from the pocket of the appellant does not go on to prove the offence of criminal misconduct against him, particularly when he has given an explanation that the trap money was thrusted in his pocket by the complainant,” the Court observed.
Taking serious note of the lower court’s reasoning, Justice Dhar pointed out patent perversities in the trial court’s judgment, noting that the Special Judge had misread the shadow witness’s evidence and proceeded to convict the accused despite recording in multiple paragraphs that the factual demand and voluntary acceptance remained unproven.
“The findings recorded by the learned trial court being not only inconsistent and contrary to each other but the same suffer from perversity. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is, therefore, not sustainable in law, inasmuch as despite noticing the infirmities in the case of the prosecution, it has proceeded to record the judgment of conviction,” the Bench held.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court dismissed the chargesheet, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and discharged his bail and surety bonds.
Advocate Gowhar Majeed Dalal appeared for the appellant, while Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadiri along with Government Advocate Faheem Nisar represented the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. (KDC)
