Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2026 INSC 239 - Corruption Case
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - The appellant, an excise constable, was trapped by the Vigilance Department while accepting a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant, a known illicit liquor trader, after demanding money to avoid implicating him in a case. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the High Court affirmed the conviction; the Supreme Court upheld the findings, relying on the consistent testimonies of the complainant (PW‑1) and independent shadow witness (PW‑2), and rejected defences about false implication, enmity, and procedural irregularities. Considering his current advanced age (around 75) and the brief period already spent in custody, the Supreme Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
Case Info
Case Information Extracted
Case name and neutral citation:Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2026 INSC 239
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Judgment date:13 March 2026 (signed at New Delhi)
Statutes / laws referred:
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Section 7
- Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
- Section 21 (right of accused to examine himself as defence witness – discussed)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 313 CrPC (statement of accused)
Caselaws and citations mentioned:The extracted text of the judgment you’ve provided does not reproduce or quote any other judicial precedents; the High Court’s and Trial Court’s reasoning is summarized, but no specific reported decisions or citations (like SCC/ AIR references) are named in this text.
Three‑sentence brief summary
The appellant, an excise constable, was trapped by the Vigilance Department while accepting a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant, a known illicit liquor trader, after demanding money to avoid implicating him in a case. The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the High Court affirmed the conviction; the Supreme Court upheld the findings, relying on the consistent testimonies of the complainant (PW‑1) and independent shadow witness (PW‑2), and rejected defences about false implication, enmity, and procedural irregularities. Considering his current advanced age (around 75) and the brief period already spent in custody, the Supreme Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
