Short answer: A trap case usually begins with a complaint that a public servant has demanded a bribe; the agency verifies the complaint and arranges a controlled handover in front of witnesses. To convict, the prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of the undue advantage. The Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta (2022) held this can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, even if the complainant turns hostile.
The offence and the procedure
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishes a public servant who obtains, accepts or attempts to obtain an undue advantage with the intention of performing a public duty improperly or dishonestly, or as a reward for doing so; Explanation 1 makes the obtaining or attempt itself an offence even if the duty was not performed improperly. Punishment is three to seven years and fine.
Under Section 17, a CBI case must be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Inspector; elsewhere the minimum is generally a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent (Assistant Commissioner in notified metropolitan areas). The first proviso to Section 17A says no prior approval is needed for an arrest on the spot on a charge of accepting or attempting to accept an undue advantage.
In practice, the agency records the complaint, verifies the demand (often through recorded conversations), prepares pre-trap and post-trap documents in the presence of independent witnesses, and seizes the money and other material. Each step becomes evidence that the defence can test at trial.
Neeraj Dutta and proof of demand
In Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), decided on 15 December 2022, a five-judge bench (Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna) held that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are facts in issue that must be proved. They can be proved by direct oral or documentary evidence or, in its absence, by circumstantial evidence. If the complainant turns hostile, dies or is unavailable, demand can still be proved through other witnesses, documents or circumstances; the trial does not abate.
The bench also confirmed that the presumption under Section 20 (now applicable to offences under Sections 7 and 11) is a presumption of law that is mandatory but rebuttable. It arises only once the foundational facts, including acceptance, are proved.
Recordings and recent rulings
Recorded conversations are now central. In Devender Kumar v. CBI (reported May 2026), Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court set aside a charge order because the Special Judge had summoned the voice recordings but framed charges without hearing them.
In Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 1147), the Supreme Court held that a bribe demand is “a pure criminal act” unconnected with official functions, so Section 17A approval was not needed to proceed.
Related questions
Is recovery of money alone enough for conviction?
No. Neeraj Dutta requires proof of demand and acceptance. Mere recovery, without proof of demand, does not by itself establish the offence, though it is part of the circumstantial picture.
What if the complainant turns hostile?
The case does not automatically fail. The Constitution Bench held that the creditworthy part of a hostile witness’s evidence can be used, and demand can be proved through other evidence.
Can the accused rebut the Section 20 presumption?
Yes. The Constitution Bench described it as a mandatory but rebuttable presumption of law. The accused can rebut it through evidence or circumstances showing that the money was not received as an undue advantage.
Is a sanction needed in a trap case?
Yes. Cognizance of a Section 7 offence against a public servant needs sanction under Section 19.
Practical points
- Seek copies of the pre-trap and post-trap memos, recordings and forensic reports at the right stage.
- Check whether the recordings are complete and accompanied by the certificate required for electronic evidence.
- Look closely at independence of the witnesses and the sequence of events in the memos.
- Take legal advice before giving any written explanation or statement about the allegation.
Sources: LiveLaw, Neeraj Dutta v. State, 15 December 2022; India Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; LiveLaw, Devender Kumar v. CBI, May 2026; Verdictum, Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan, October 2026.
For a confidential discussion on trap cases and CBI investigations, see Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI and vigilance matters.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
