Trap Case Does Not Require Preliminary Enquiry, But Demand Must Still Be Proved at Trial: Calcutta High Court

"Corrupt Officials Know Many Tricks — The Manner and Mode of Corruption Cannot Be Defined in a Straitjacket Formula", Calcutta High Court dismissed a revisional application filed by a West Bengal Civil Services officer seeking to quash criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arising from a trap case in which he was alleged to have demanded and accepted Rs. 1 lakh as illegal gratification for facilitating an excise licence.

Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held that prima facie materials — including the shadow witness statement, phenolphthalein test, FSL report confirming handling of tainted money, and call records — were sufficient to let the trial proceed, while categorically holding that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in trap cases.

The petitioner, a Deputy Excise Collector posted at Canning Range, South 24-Parganas, was arrested on November 26, 2016 by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), West Bengal, on the basis of a complaint alleging that he had demanded Rs. 16 lakhs as illegal gratification for facilitating a bar-cum-restaurant licence at Dumdum, North 24-Parganas — outside his territorial posting — and had asked for Rs. 1 lakh as the first instalment. A trap was laid, during which the complainant handed over phenolphthalein-treated currency notes. The petitioner's hand wash tested positive for phenolphthalein at the FSL. Charge sheet was filed in January 2017. The trial court rejected his discharge application. He challenged the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court on multiple grounds.

Demand Is Sine Qua Non — But Prima Facie Material Sufficient at Pre-Trial Stage

The Court extensively surveyed the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the sine qua non of demand and acceptance under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Relying on C. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (2015), P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. (2015), K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana (2022), and the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), the Court held that proof of demand and acceptance — whether by direct or circumstantial evidence — is the gravamen of the offence. Mere recovery without proof of demand will not sustain conviction.

However, the Court drew a clear distinction between the standard for conviction and the standard for refusing to quash at the pre-trial stage. At this stage, the court only assesses whether prima facie materials exist — not whether they are sufficient for conviction.

"Needless to mention the trial of the case does not begin and this Court is called upon to consider whether there is prima facie material against the present petitioner for framing charges. The shadow witness and other witnesses have stated that there was a demand of illegal gratification from the petitioner and the petitioner had handled the tainted money."

The FSL report confirmed phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in both hand wash samples of the petitioner. Call records from Airtel and Vodafone corroborated contact between the petitioner and the complainant on November 25 and 26, 2016. The Court found that the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) were satisfied at the threshold level.

Preliminary Enquiry Not Mandatory in Trap Cases

The Court acknowledged that the P&AR Department notification dated November 22, 2012 mandated preliminary enquiry before the ACB proceeds against a public servant. However, it held that in trap cases this requirement yields to a recognised judicial exception, based on the very nature of trap proceedings.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (2025) and State of Karnataka v. Channakeshava H.D. (2025) to hold that an accused has no vested right to demand a preliminary enquiry. The reasons are practical: a trap requires speed and secrecy; conducting a preliminary enquiry would alert the accused and destroy evidence; and the pre-trap memo with independent witnesses serves the same protective function as a preliminary enquiry in compressed form.

"In a trap case, a preliminary enquiry is not a legal necessity. The objective of preliminary enquiry is to ensure that innocent persons are not subjected to frivolous prosecution. However, in a trap, the verification is done through a pre-trap memo and the presence of independent witnesses, which serves as a safeguard similar to a preliminary enquiry but in a much more compressed time frame."

Territorial Jurisdiction and Office Holiday: Both Arguments Rejected

The petitioner argued that since he was posted at Canning Range, he could not have demanded money for a licence at Dumdum, North 24-Parganas. The Court rejected this with a pointed observation.

"The manner and mode of corruption cannot be defined in a straitjacket formula. The corrupt officials know many tricks to manifest that they have the ability to facilitate the opening of liquor shops even outside their jurisdiction."

On the argument that the ACB office was closed on the relevant Saturday, the Court noted that by notification dated November 14, 2012, the ACB had been declared a Police Station with jurisdiction throughout West Bengal, and that no police station remains closed on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. The RTI replies from PWD and Kolkata Police regarding the New Secretariat Building's closure did not determine the functioning of the ACB Police Station itself, as demonstrated by the fact that an accused in another ACB case was already in police custody on that very date.

Quashing of Departmental Proceedings: No Bar to Criminal Trial

The petitioner had also obtained a quashing of the departmental proceedings by the State Administrative Tribunal in 2025. The Court held this was irrelevant, relying on Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP (2020) 9 SCC 636, which requires that the departmental proceedings must have been decided on merits after full evidence for their outcome to affect criminal prosecution. In this case, the Tribunal had terminated the proceedings on technical grounds without appreciating evidence on merit. The criminal prosecution proceeds independently.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the revisional application and directed the trial to proceed. The ruling clarifies that while demand and acceptance remain the sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory where a trap case discloses a cognizable offence, and the existence of prima facie materials is sufficient to defeat a pre-trial quashing application under Section 482 CrPC.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2026