CENTRAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION
ACADEMY

READING MATERIAL
ON
TRAP

KAMLA NEHRU NAGAR, HAPUR ROAD,

GHAZIABAD
 A STANDARDIZED PROCEDURE FOR INVESTIGATION OF TRAP CASES
By Shri R.K. Choubey, Dy.SP(Trg)
GENERAL
A.1 Meaning :
In layman’s language, Trap means, catching some one unaware while
doing objectionable act. But from Anti-Corruption point of view, Trap means
catching a public servant, as defined in Section 2(c) of the PC Act 1988,
accepting bribe for showing favour or for the favour already shown or
forebearing to do so.

A.2 One of the most effective methods of tackling corruption at the

cutting edge level is, by laying of traps, which means catching public servants
red-handed in the process of demanding and accepting bribe. The method is
useful in cases where the corruption is of non-collusive nature. The case of trap
is registered u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which generally deals with
public servant who (a) accepts or (b) obtains or (c) agrees to accept or (d)
attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any
gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for :
(i) doing or forbearing to do Official Act
or
(ii) for showing or forbearing or to show, in the exercise of his official function,
favour or disfavour to any person
or
(iii) for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person,
with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local authority, Corporation or
Government company referred to clause (c) of Section 2 or with any public
servant, whether named or otherwise.
A.2.1 The Supreme Court has held the laying of traps as a legitimate
means for catching corrupt public servants and ruled that the decoy, i.e.,
complainant in trap cases is not to be treated as an accomplice in the crime,
holding that, "A person who from the very beginning has no intention of giving
the bribe but makes a show of it to bring a dishonest public servant to book, far
from being an accomplice, is a good citizen". But a distinction has been drawn
between a legitimate trap and an illegitimate trap as laid down in Mohiyuddin
V/s. State(AIR 1952). A trap is said to be illegitimate " when a public servant
has not demanded a bribe and he is only suspected to be in the habit of taking
bribe and he is tempted with a bribe just to see whether he would accept it".

A.3 Kinds of Trap

A.3.1 Traps are laid on (i) Corrupt public servant (ii) the bribe giver (also
called Reverse Trap) and (iii) tout or middlemen, employed either by the
accused public servant or the favour seeker to act on their behalf.

A.3.2 Case for trap are registered against

(i) Public Servant u/s 7,11, 13(1)(a) & 13(1)(b),
(ii) Bribe giver u/s 12 and
(iii) Tout u/s 8 & 9 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

B. LEGAL ASPECTS
B.1 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) was enacted and
some provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45
of 1860), and amendments to the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944
(Ordinance 38 of 1944) were also adopted, as under:

B.2 Comparative Chart

Section of Sections of old P.C. Act (2 of 1947), the Criminal Law
new Prevention of (Amendment) Act (46 of 1952), and Indian Penal Code
Corruption Act, (45 of 1860) and the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance
1988 (49 of 1988) (Ordinance 38 of 1944).
Sections Sections
1 1 of old P.C. Act 2 of 1947
2(a) Explanation 3 of Sec. 21 of I.P.C. 45 of 1860
2(b) --
2(c) 21 of I.P.C. (45 of 1860)
3 6 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 46 of 1952
4 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 46 of 1952
5 8 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 46 of 1952
6 8-A of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 46 of 1952
7 161 I.P.C. 45 of 1860
8 162 I.P.C. 45 of 1860
9 163 I.P.C. 45 of 1860
10 164 I.P.C. 45 of 1860
11 165 I.P.C. 45 of 1860
12 165-A I.P.C. 45 of 1860
13 5(1) and (2) of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
14 5(3) of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
15 5(3-A) of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
16 5(3-B) of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
17 5-A(1) of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
18 5-A(2) of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
19(1) & (2) 6(1) & (2) of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
19(3)(4) -
20 4 of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
21 7 of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
22 7-A of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
23 6-A of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
24 8 of old P.C. Act. 2 of 1947
25 11 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 46 of 1952
26 -
27 9 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 46 of 1952
28 5(4) of old P.C. Act 2 of 1947
29 3, 9, 10, 11 & 13 and Schedule to Criminal Law
(Amendment) Ordinance 38 of 1944
30 -
31 -

The relevant sections concerning Trap are as under:-

B.3 Trap against Public servant (Substantive Sections)

Section 7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal
 remuneration in respect of an official act-

B.3.1 Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or

obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or
for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration,
as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing
or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour
to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to
any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation
or Government company referred to in clause(c) of section 2, or with any public
servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment
which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and
shall also be liable to fine.

B.3.2 Explanation -(a) "Expecting to be a public servant". If a person not

expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief
that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty
of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.

B.3.3 (b) "Gratification". The word "gratification" is not restricted to

pecuniary gratifications or to gratification estimable in money.

B.3.4 (c) "Legal remuneration". The words "legal remuneration" are not
restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but
include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the
organisation, which he serves, to accept.

B.3.5 (d) "A motive or reward for doing". A person who receives a
gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a
position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.
B.3.6 (e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe
that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and
thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other
gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an
offence under this section.

B.3.7 Section 11: Public servant obtaining valuable thing,

without consideration from person concerned in
proceeding or business transacted by such public
servant -

Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or

attempts to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any valuable thing without
consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any
person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in
any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public
servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any
public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to
be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may
extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

B.3.8 Sec. 13(1)(a) :

A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to
obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other
than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7.

B.3.9 Sec. 13(1)(b) :

 A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to
obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without
consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any
person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in
any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him or
having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public
servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be
interested in or related to the person so concerned.

B.3.10 Trap against Bribe giver (ReverseTrap)

Section 12 : Punishment for abetment of offences defined in section 7 or
11:-
Whoever abets any offence punishable under section 7 or section 11
whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six
months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

B.3.11 Trap against Tout / Middle man.

B.3.12 Section 8: Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal
means, to influence public servant -

Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain,

from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever
as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public
servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or
in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or
disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or
disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government
or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority,
corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with
any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may
extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

B.3.13 Section 9: Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence

with public servant -

Whoever accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain,

from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever,
as a motive or reward for inducing, by the exercise of personal influence,
any public servant whether named or otherwise to do or to forbear to do any
official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to
show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any
service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State
Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local
authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause(c) of section
2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which
may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

B.3.14 Who is competent to lay a Trap

Section 17 of the P.C Act, 1988 empowers an officer of the SPE of and
above the rank of Inspector to investigate offences punishable under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 without the orders of the Metropolitan
Magistrate or Ist Class Judicial Magistrate and also to arrest a person without a
warrant. In case of State Police, Officers not below the rank of Dy.SP, Asstt.
Commissioner of Police (in Metropolitan areas) or officers of the rank of
inspectors authorized by the State Government can lay a trap. However, any
Police Officer not otherwise empowered to lay a trap can do so after obtaining
permission of Magistrate having jurisdiction as laying of trap is, in fact, collection
of evidence against corrupt public servant to investigate the offence of demand of
bribe.

B.3.15 Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988 reads as under:-

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank-

(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an

Inspector of Police;

(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and

Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such
under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of
Police;

(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police

officer of equivalent rank,

shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a
Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or
make any arrest therefor without a warrant:

Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is
authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he
may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan
Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest
therefor without a warrant:

Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of

section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below
the rank of a Superintendent of Police.

B.3.16 Previous sanction necessary for prosecution

 "Section 19, P.C. Act"

B.3.16.1 (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under

Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public
servant, except with the previous sanction, -

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with

the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Central Government, of that Government ;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with

the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the State Government, of that Government ;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to

remove from his office.

B.3.16.2 (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to
whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given
by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such
sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been
competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the
offence was alleged to have been committed.

B.3.16.3 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), -
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge
shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the
ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction
required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of
justice has in fact been occasioned thereby ;
 (b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the
ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the
authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has
resulted in a failure of justice ;

(c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any
other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any
interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.

B.3.16.4 (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence

of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or
resulted in a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the
objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the
proceedings.

B.3.16.5 Explanation :- For the purposes of this section ,-

(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction ;
(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any
requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a
specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any
requirement of a similar nature.

B.3.17 Generally, a trap can be laid only after receipt of a written

complaint. The complaint, inter-alia, must contain (i) the demand of bribe by the
public servant or with regard to public servant, indicating the date, time and place
of the demand (ii) Purpose for which the bribe is sought (iii) the unwillingness of
the complainant to pay the bribe.

B.3.18 Section 20 - Presumption where public servant accepts

gratification other than legal remuneration :-
B.3.18.1 (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7
or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is
proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to
accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any
gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any
person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or
obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that
valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned
in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration
which he knows to be inadequate.

B.3.18.2 (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12

or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than
legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given
or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that
gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward
such as is mentioned in Section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration
or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

B.3.18.3 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and

(2), the Court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the
said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial
that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.

B.3.19 Section 24 - Statement by bribe giver not to subject

him to prosecution :

B.3.19.1 Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in
force, a statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant
for an offence under Sections 7 to 11 or under Section 13 or Section 15, that he
offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any
valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a
prosecution under Section 12.

C. STANDARIZED PROCEDURE FOR TRAP

C.1 No two cases of trap are ever identical, yet it is necessary that laying of
trap and its investigation is standardised.

C.2 Where a public servant demands or accepts or attempts to obtain or

agrees to accept bribe from a person which the latter is not willing to pay,
information is given to the police by such person about the demand etc. made by
the public servant. On receipt of such information, an FIR is lodged after due
verification and a trap is arranged. The G.C. notes brought by the complainant
are treated with phenolphthalein powder in the presence of two independent
witnesses, whose services are procured for the purpose. Team is formed under
the leadership of an able officer, called Trap Laying Officer (TLO). Everyone is
briefed by the leader of the team and the offender is caught when he accepts the
bribe.

C.3 In CBI, investigation is done by the SPE Division. CBI is a Central

Organisation. Our Constitution has divided the entire legislative business in three
parts known, as List I, List II & List III. The matters which are exclusively subject
matter of the Central Government, are in List I, called the Central List ; subjects
on which both Centre and State have jurisdiction are in List III, called Concurrent
List and those subjects which are exclusively to be dealt by the State, are in List
II, known as State List. Law and order is in List II and investigation is treated as a
part of law and order, hence it is the exclusive monopoly of the State
Government. Hence CBI does not have inherent right to investigate cases in any
State. It can investigate only when (i) the offences to be investigated are notified
in the official gazette by Govt. of India under Section 3 of D.S.P.E. Act and (ii) the
State Govt. gives consent for investigation in that area (This may be subject to
further limitation laid down by State for CBI to function in its State). If any of
these conditions is not fulfilled, the CBI does not have authority to investigate and
hence cannot lay trap because trap forms a part of investigation. Further,
whenever the State Government give consent to CBI to investigate, generally,
such consent is in respect of the Central Government employees or the
employees of establishments controlled by the Central Government or the Public
Sector undertakings of the Central Government. So far as the investigative
agencies of the States are concerned, they do not suffer from the above
constraints. Any trap laid by the CBI in the territorial jurisdiction of any State
even if the suspect is a Central Govt./PSU servant has to be subject to the
above conditions.

C.4 On the receipt of the written complaint alleging demand of bribe, a

complaint is registered, and an officer is deputed to verify the complaint.

C.5 Verification: The Supreme Court in Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras,

1970(3) SCR-931 : AIR 1971 SC 520 : 1971 Cr.L.J. has held that before laying
the trap, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by
a responsible officer. An officer is deputed for the verification for which no
minimum rank is prescribed. The verification of complaint comprises of (i)
examination of the Complainant (ii) discreet verification of allegation as contained
in the complaint (iii) Submission of verification report .

C.6 Examination of Complainant:- Details of the complainant, like, father's

name, permanent address, profession and relation with the public servant, if
any, against whom complaint is lodged, should be ascertained. It should also be
tactfully ascertained if the complainant had paid any bribe earlier to the
suspected public servant, (ii) Whether the complainant had ever got any other
public servant trapped, if so, the fate of the case and whether complainant had
turned hostile (iii) If there is any litigation going on between the complainant
and the suspected public servant (iv) If the complainant had ever taken any loan
from the suspected public servant or had monetary transactions with him (v)
when the amount to be paid as bribe is substantial, whether the complainant is
capable to arrange the amount and if not, why and who, arranged the amount.

C.7 If the complainant appears with a written complaint, the author of the
same should be ascertained. Similarly, if the complaint is typed, the details of
the typist should be ascertained. In case of slightest doubt, the complainant
should be warned that if the complaint turns out to be false, the complainant will
be prosecuted for having lodged false/malicious complaint.

C.8 In brief, verification about bonafides of the complainant should be

checked before proceeding further.

C.9 Verification of Complaint: While verifying the complaint, discreet

enquiries about general reputation of the public servant on point of integrity
should be done wherever possible. It should be ascertained if the complainant
has official dealing with the public servant. If feasible, the complainant should
be asked to meet the public servant alongwith independent witness and talk to
the public servant so that the demand of bribe by the public servant could be
verified. But if it is not feasible for the complainant to meet the public servant
alongwith independent witness, he may be asked to telephone the suspected
public servant and speak to him, so that the demand of bribe, amount, place and
time of the payment and other details could figure in the conversation. Such
conversation can be tape recorded and heard later by the Police Officer and
other concerned as the same is legally permissible(R.M Malkani V/s. State of
Maharastra AIR 1973 SC 157). But if the suspected public servant is hesitant to
talk on phone, the complainant could be given a micro tape recorder and should
be duly briefed as to how to operate the tape recorder. The cassette and cell
should be brand new. He should be briefed to start(On) the recorder
immediately before meeting the suspect. It should be borne in mind that
verification is done only for the limited purpose of ascertaining the genuineness
of the complaint, hence it should be ensured that the verification need not be an
exhaustive enquiry or investigation. But the motive or purpose for which bribe is
demanded must be ascertained.

C.10 If verification does not convince the police officer about the truth of the
allegation, no trap should be attempted. If however, it is confirmed that the
allegation is prima facie true, the following action is to be taken.

C.11 Verification Report: The Verifying Officer should submit his

verification report immediately after completing the verification, which must
contain (i) Date and time of receipt of complaint for verification (ii) Places visited
for verifying the complaint (iii) Instructions given by the Verifying Officer to the
complainant, (iv) Whether the complainant met suspected public servant, if so,
who accompanied the complainant (v) whether or not, there was demand from
the public servant, if so, (a) amount (b) for what purpose the same was made,
(vi) Date, time and place where amount is to be paid & (vii) recommendation or
findings of the Verifying Officer. Verification report is to be submitted, irrespective
of the fact whether allegations were true, wrong or false.

C.12 The Verification Report is to be put up before the Controlling Officer, who
on being satisfied is to order registration of a case u/s. 7 of the P.C. Act.

C.13 FIR: As mere demand or agreement to accept bribe by a public servant

is a cognizable offence under Section 7 of the P.C Act 1988, hence if on the
verification, the complaint is found to be genuine, a case under Section 7 of the
PC Act, 1988 should be registered before proceeding further. If the complainant
has paid some amount prior to lodging the FIR, this fact may also be mentioned
in the Verification Report & Sec. 13(1)(d) may be added in the FIR. The fact that
the complaint was verified, could be mentioned in the FIR.
C.14 An entry on the General Diary, indicating the registration of the case
should be made.

C.15 FIR should be despatched to the competent court as early as possible,

because, at times, the delay in receipt of FIR in the court, coupled with other
petty circumstance is viewed adversely by the court and FIR itself becomes
suspicious, suggesting ante-dating of the FIR.

C.16 Process of laying Trap

The process of laying of trap may be divided into three stages, viz., (i)
Pre-trap Preparation, (ii) Actual Trap and (iii) Post Trap Investigation.

C.17 Preparation
The Trap Laying Officer(TLO), if feasible, should discreetly survey the
likely location to select the most suitable:

a) Likely place of Trap.

b) Positioning of Trap Members, Witnesses and
c) The appropriate signal (Nature of signal to be given and who to
give signal)

C.18 Formation of Trap Party

The Trap Party should have sufficient number of officers at least some of
whom should be well conversant in laying of trap. Leader of the team should be
given the total responsibility of laying the trap. While selecting the Trap Laying
Officer(TLO), the status of the accused should always be kept in mind: if the
accused is senior officer, the TLO should also be selected accordingly.

C.19 Requisition for Independent Witnesses

 Many cases have been unsuccessful during trial due to improper selection
of witnesses. While selecting the witnesses, it should be ascertained that
witnesses do not have official or personal relationship with the complainant or the
accused. In CBI, usually, public servants are requisitioned from the
Ministries/Govt. Departments/Public Sector Undertakings to act as Independent
Witnesses. Care should be taken to ensure that any person who has been
associated earlier with any trap should not be selected as an Independent
Witness again. The witness selected should be well conversant with the
language in which the conversation between the complainant and the accused is
likely to take place at the time of transaction of the bribe money. While
requisitioning for the services of independent witnesses, care should be
taken that (a) the witnesses are not from the deptt to which the suspected
public servant belongs (b) the requirement like fluency of the witnesses in
any particular language, status, should be indicated, besides indicating the
date, time, place of reporting. By way of abundant caution, services of more
than two witnesses should be requisitioned so that at least two witnesses fulfill
the requirement of the Trap at hand. .

C.20 Briefing the Witness:

After the assemblage at the time and venue fixed, the witnesses, as also
the members of the Trap Party, should be explained about the purpose of
assemblage. The complainant should be introduced to the witnesses and also
to the members of the Trap Party. The witnesses should be encouraged to put
questions to the complainant to satisfy themselves about the genuineness of the
complaint and his signature/L.T.I. on the complaint.

C.21 Demonstration:
The process of laying of trap as also the use of Phenolphthalein powder
and its reaction with the Sodium Carbonate should be explained to the witnesses
and the complainant. This should be followed by a practical demonstration. For
this purpose, the money brought by the complainant, to be paid to the public
servant in pursuance of the latter's demand, or wilingness to accept should be
treated with Phenolphthalein powder. It should be applied lightly but uniformly to
the currency note(s) or any other article to be given as bribe. TLO should ensure
removal of excess powder otherwise the corrupt officials may not accept the
currency notes when lot of powder is visible to him. The excess powder must be
removed by gentle tapping and not by wiping with some cloth. A very small
amount of phenolphthalein powder would serve the purpose because of its
sensitivity. One of the two witnesses should be asked to take the said
phenolphthalein treated currency notes in hand. A solution of Sodium Carbonate
should be prepared in clean glass tumbler. The witness, who had touched the
currency notes, should be asked to wash the fingers of his hand, with which he
has touched the G.C Notes, in the milky solution of Sodium Carbonate. As a
consequence of washing, the milky solution will turn pink/purple.

C.22 Phenolphthalein powder is selected for the purpose of smearing the

notes for the following reasons:-
It is colourless
It is non sticky in nature
It is invisible
It can be easily and immediately detected even when present in very small
quantities (Concentration as low as 1 millioneth of a gm in 100 ml can be
detected)

C.23 Phenolphthalein has the property of imparting faint pink to deep red colour
with the solution of any alkali such as sodium carbonate/Sodium bicarbonate,
lime (calcium Hydroxide) etc. in water depending upon the quantities of
phenolphthalein and strength of alkaline solution. As such the visual red colour
of the solution when obtained by washing hands of the accused who has
accepted bribe with sodium carbonate/sodium bi-carbonate solution is
indicative of the fact that the money has been touched by the accused. Use of
alkalis like lime water and ammonia should be avoided. The best solution for
this purpose would be of sodium carbonate.

C.24 Residual Phenolphthalein Powder should be returned to Malkhana.

C.25 The treated G.C notes should be returned back to the complainant with
suitable direction for giving the same to the suspected public servant.

C.26 The members of the trap party, the two witnesses & the decoy should be
briefed about the nature of signal to be given by the decoy or the shadow
witness when the accused accepts the tainted G.C notes. This should be done
in the presence of the complainant & the shadow witnesses and members of
the trap party so that all could hear.

C.27 The Members of the Trap Party, witneses and the complainant should be
briefed about the individual role to be played by each of them when the
complainant approaches the suspected public servant for paying the treated G.C
Notes, directing them to conduct themselves in unobtrusive manner.

C.28 Generally, no member of team should carry any money or valuable other
than the trap money by the complainant.

C.29 The hands of the members of the Trap Party and witnesses are to be
washed with soap and water to ensure that no particle of Phenolphthalein
Powder remains on their person.

C.30 Preparation of Pre-Trap Panchnama/Handing over Memo/Pre-Trap

Memo:
Panchnama/Handing over Memo/Pre-Trap Memo is to be prepared,
preferably indicating the sequence of events. The TLO should prepare pre-trap
Panchnama which may include the following :
(i) arrival of complainant with G.C Notes,
(ii) arrival of panch witnesses,
(iii) introduction of Panch witnesses with the complainant & that of the
members of the trap party,
(iv) reading over of the complaint before the pancha witnesses and the trap
party,
(v) questioning of the complainant by the Pancha witnesses,
(vi) owning of the complaint by the complainant, including that of his signature/
L.T.I. on the complaint,
(vii) production of the G.C Notes by the complainant to the T.L.O & number,
(viii) recording of denomination of the G.C Notes and the G.C. Note Nos.
(ix) demonstration of the reaction of Phenolphthalein with Sodium Carbonate,
including the name of the person who had touched the G.C Notes,
(x) instruction to the complainant, including the signal to be given after the
public servant accepts the tainted G.C notes & also to the members of
the trap party,
(xi) name of the witness, who is to accompany the complainant,
(xii) return of the remaining phenolphthalein powder to the Malkhana of the
office,
(xiii) washing of hands by the member of the trap party, with soap including the
complainant & the witnesses,
(xiv) instruction to the complainant to give the bribe only on demand and not
otherwise.
(xv) Carrying of the Trap Kit & a copy of Pre Trap Memo

C.31 It is necessary to indicate the case no, date, time & place of preparation of
the Panchanama(commencement & completion), name & designation of the
Police officers, complainant and the witnesses. After preparing the Pre-trap
Panchanama (by whatever name called), signature of the (a) members of the
trap party (b) the decoy and (c) the two independent witnesses should be
obtained on the same. If the complainant/witnesses is/are not conversant
with the language in which the panchanama is prepared, the contents of
the Panchanama must be explained in the language known to the
concerned person and endorsement to that effect should be made on the
body of the Panchanama & signature of all, concerned must invariably be
obtained on the Panchanama.

C.32 Trap Kit:

The Trap Kit should be left with one member of trap party. The Trap Kit
should contain the following:
Sodium Carbonate
Unbreakable/impenetrable glass bottles
Water
Tumbler
Envelopes
Markin(cloth)
Sealing Wax
Seal
Pins
Match Box
Niddle & Thread
Tag
Candle
IO’s Rubber Stamp

1(a) Paper (b) Carbons, (c) Search list, (d) Notices u/s 160 (e) 91 Cr.PC, (f)
Authorisation u/s 165 Cr.PC for conducting house/office search.

C.32 Care should be taken to ensure that a copy (not original) of the
Punchnama/Handing Over Memo/Pre-Trap memo is also kept in the Trap Kit.
C.33 As far as possible, the TLO should carry Mobile Phone and must also
carry phone numbers of the nearest police station, SP/DSP having jurisdiction,
Police Control Room and also of his own departmental superiors.

C.34 In order to successfully lay a trap, it is essential that the complainant, the
independent witnesses and member of the trap party, act as per the briefing
given to them so that sufficient evidence is collected at the time of laying of trap
itself, as crucial evidence is collected mostly at the time of a trap and further
investigation of the trap case is basically for obtaining corroborative evidence.
The TLO should clearly brief the complainant regarding the way the treated
money is to be passed on to the accused. It is important that the conversation
between the accused and the complainant at the time of laying of trap is
overheard by the independent witnesses. To be in a position to over hear the
conversation, micro tape recorder may be used. When it is necessary to use the
tape recorder, it should be ensured that the functioning of the tape recorder is
properly known to the complainant and the witnesses.

C.35 Actual Trap

The team should alight from the vehicle far ahead of the actual site of
trap. They should not move in a group, rather they should be scattered so that
their movement appears natural not suspicious. The Members of the Trap Party
should take their position in such a way that they are able to over-hear the
conversations and see the transaction of the bribe money as far as practicable.
One of the witnesses has to be earmarked as shadow witness to over-hear the
conversation. The TLO should place himself in such a way that the complainant
and the shadow witness are visible to him and he is in a position to get the signal
from the complainant or the shadow witness clearly. The position taken should
be in an unobstrusive manner. After the members take respective position
incognito, the complainant should approach the public servant and initiate
conversation in such a way that demand and purpose are clearly brought out
during conversation. The witnesses as also the members of the Trap Party
should try to over-hear the conversation between the complainant and the
suspect. The transaction and the conversation, as far as practicable, should be
recorded on a tape recorder. After the transaction is over and after the signal is
received, the TLO should immediately rush to the accused, disclose his identity
and challenge the accused for having demanded and accepted the illegal
gratification and his (accused’s) utterances and reaction should be observed
carefully. The two hands of the accused should be caught by wrist. If, for any
reason, the arrest is to be effected by any person, other than the T.L.O, it should
be ensured that such officer should be legally competent to investigate cases
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as arrest of accused forms part of
investigation, (alternately, he could be properly authorised by the IO). The
decoy/shadow witness should be asked about the demand and acceptance of
the tainted G.C notes by the accused public servant and the place where the
tainted G.C notes were kept by the accused after its acceptance. Having done
this, the accused public servant should be clearly questioned on this aspect and
his explanation should, as far as possible, be recorded verbatim. The tainted
G.C notes should be recovered from wherever the same is kept by accused,
preferably by the shadow witness and it should be ensured that the accused
doesn't touch the tainted G.C notes and his hands do not come into contact with
the hands of the witness/person who recovered the tainted G.C notes. These
G.C notes should be counted and the numbers be tallied with those indicated in
the pre-trap Panchanama. If after acceptance of bribe the accused counted the
same using his both hands and kept the tainted G.C notes in the pocket of his
shirt/pant/coat, the same should be clearly recorded. Thereafter, solution of
Sodium Carbonate should be prepared in clean water and the fingers of the
hand of the accused which had come in contact with the tainted G.C notes at the
time of acceptance should be dipped in the said solution. The same should be
kept in a bottle, the mouth of the bottle should be closed and wrapped in a
piece of cloth, stitched & marked. For example, if the solution is of the right
hand fingers, it should be marked as 'R.H'; if of left hand, 'L.H'. Separate solution
should be prepared for separate washes and those should be similarly kept in
bottle, wrapped in a piece of cloth & then stitched sealed and marked. If the
tainted G.C notes had been recovered from, say the upper left hand side shirt
pocket of the accused, the shirt should be seized and the portion in which the
amount was kept should be similarly dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate.
Such solution should also be similarly sealed and marked. On all such bottles
containing the said solution, signature of the complainant, 2 witnesses, the TLO
must be obtained, with date. Similarly, pant/shirt/coat etc. seized should also be
packed, sealed duly marked & signature of all concerned be taken. If the
accused has not touched the tainted G.C. notes, no hand wash should be
taken. Similarly, if the accused has touched the G.C. notes with the right hand &
the left hand has not come in contact of the tainted G.C. notes, hand wash of
only right hand should be taken. Handwash should be taken only when the
accused has touched the tainted G.C. notes, else, no.

C.36 It may be ensured that the bottles are corked properly and sealed around
the periphery of its neck firmly. In addition, special care may be exercised to seal
the mouth of the bottle also to avoid any possibility of change of wash solution
contained in the bottle by use of an injection syringe/similiar devices. These
bottles may also be kept in an upright position and sent to laboratory through
special messenger, as in certain trap cases broken bottles/bottles with leaked
contents were received when sent to the forensic laboratory through post
parcels; although the bottles were wrapped in cloth covers. Plastic containers
must not be used to avoid any possibility of transference of liquid by
means of injection / needle syringes. It may be noted that with passage of
time, the red colour of the solution may turn into colourless solution. Therefore,
every effort should be made by the IO to send the trap exhibits for analysis to
the Forensic Laboratory at the earliest.

C.37 Decolorization of Solution

The pink colour of the solution collected after the washing of the hands of
the accused can disappear due to :
i) the presence of carbon di-oxide present in the atmosphere if the bottle
containing the solution is not properly sealed.

ii) water used for preparation of sodium carbonate/sodium bicarbonate was

not clean. The suggestion, therefore, is that clean tap water be used for
preparing sodium carbonate solution in the absence of distilled water. Hand
pump water, pond water and river water must not be used for preparing any
solution as those may be contaminated.

iii) if the quantity of pink solution kept in the bottle is small. Care has also
to be exercised at the time of laying the trap that too much sodium carbonate
is not put in the water resulting in high concentration of sodium carbonate. It is,
therefore, suggested that a tea spoon of sodium carbonate in one litre of water
should be used for washing the hands of the accused and the bottles should be
filled up to the neck to avoid decolourisation of the solution in the bottle due
to the presence of air in it, since carbon di-oxide is one of the constituents of air.

C.38 Since the court places great reliance on the visual pink colour, its
disappearance may create doubt in the mind of the court and may complicate
the matter. It is, therefore, prudent to avoid the disappearance of colour.

C.39 Recovery of the tainted money is extremely important in trap cases.

There should be minimum delay in apprehending the accused after the bribe
money has been passed on to him. After the bribe money has been taken by the
accused, he should be kept under watch by the TLO and other members of team
so that he is not able to get rid of the tainted money. It is equally important to
effect recovery of the bribe money from the place of offence. Many cases are
acquitted as the place of recovery of tainted money is not the same as the place
of occurrence. This point should be kept in mind while planning the trap, if
possible. The venue of the trap should be fixed in such a manner that the
necessity of immediate removal of the accused from the spot does not arise. In
case it becomes absolutely essential to shift the accused from the spot without
the recovery of the bribe money, reasons for the same should be invariably
mentioned in the Recovery/Post Trap Panchnama.

C.40 Search of the venue, for documents or articles associated with the
motive or reward should be conducted instantly u/s. 165 Cr.PC and
documents/articles found relevant should be seized to prove the motive/reward
for the demand & acceptance of bribe. If this search is delayed, friends /
associates / accomplices of accused may try to tamper with the documents to
help the accused.

C.41 A detailed Memorandum incorporating the sequence of events of the

proceedings should be prepared on the spot itself. As far as possible, the
conversation between the complainant and the suspect should be recorded
verbatim. In the event of change of venue, the reasons for shifting the venue for
observing the post Trap proceedings must be recorded clearly.

C.42 While preparing the Panchanama/recovery memorandum, case no. and

designation of all person(trap party, 2 independent witnesses, the decoy and the
accused) should be indicated. Similarly, the time of preparation of Panchanama
(when it was started and when completed) should also be indicated. While
indicating the sequence of events in the Panchanama, the person who
challenged the accused public servant, the utterances and reaction of the public
servant, persons who caught the two wrists of the accused and on whose
direction, of orders the accused was arrested, who counted/recovered G.C notes,
who compared the no. of G.C notes with those indicated in the Pre-Trap
Panchanama, must be specifically indicated. G.C. nos. of the recovered G.C
notes need not be written in Post Trap Panchanama; Instead,
endorsement indicating that number of the recovered G.C notes tallied with
the G. C notes indicated in Pre trap Panchanama, would suffice. Before the
Panchanama is completed, facsimile impression of the seal used should
also be affixed on the last page of the Panchanama. Besides, at least on 2
blank sheets of paper facsimile impression of the seal should also be duly
taken. The signature of all concerned should be obtained on the
Panchanama. It may be mentioned that signature of the accused must not
be obtained on Panchanama as the same is likely to be hit by Section 25 of
the Evidence Act. However, his signature, in token of having received a copy of
Panchaname should be obtained after a copy of the Panchanama is actually
handed over to the accused public servant. It is customary to conduct the
house search of the accused u/s. 165 Cr.P.C after successful trap is laid. It
should be done or got done immediately after the trap is laid.

C.43 It may be noted that when the suspect is a lady official, it is necessary
to include lady officer(s) and/or witness in the trap party who should catch
the suspect by her wrists and take her hand and pocket wash. If the lady
suspect is trapped in a public place, it is advisable to remove her to a
private place for conducting personal search and pocket wash etc. This
fact must be incorporated in the recovery memo.

C.44 At times some ticklish situations may also arise in laying of trap. For
example the suspect may refuse to touch the trap money and ask the
decoy to keep it at some place in his office

C.44.1 (a) There are two possibilities in such cases where the suspect
does not himself touch the currency notes:
(i) He speaks to the decoy about the place where the money
is to be kept or names the tout to whom it is to be given.
(ii) He conveys the place where the money is to be kept
through a gesture, like pointing towards his drawer or
handing over his car keys.
C.44.2 (i)(a) When the suspect speaks to the complainant, even though
the suspect does not touch the money; the things that go against him are : (i)
his utterances if recorded on the hidden tape recorder (ii) the witnesses may
also hear him naming the place where he asks the G.C. note is to be kept or the
person to whom it is to be given. In such cases, the complainant should also be
briefed to try and get the suspect to speak about his relationship with the place
or person and elicit his answer so that his reply gets recorded on the tape
recorder. Recovery of the money from the indicated person or place is another
evidence which goes against the suspect. Even in cases where the witnesses
cannot go very near the suspect to hear the conversation, tape recording proves
to be vital evidence.

C.44.3 (ii)(a) In the second possibility, where the suspect only points
towards some place or passes over his car keys without saying anything, the
investigators should try to get a distinctive sound like opening, closing of the
drawer or clanking of the car keys recorded on the concealed tape recorder. In
such cases, wherever possible, the trap laying team should also wait and
watch the suspect's next move. If after sometime, he gets up to lift the money,
this is the best time to catch him red-handed with the money in his possession.
Alternately, the concealed bribe money can be recovered at the instance of the
suspect.

C.45 The suspect operates through a tout

Where the demand for bribe is made by a tout on behalf of the suspect
official, trap can be laid against the tout. However, in such cases, it becomes
imperative for the investigating officer to prove the link between the tout and the
suspect official to proceed against him as well. In such cases, the decoy may be
briefed to try and get the suspect and tout to talk also about their relation with
each other and this conversation is recorded on the hidden tape recorder.

C.46 When Trap party is unable to recover the bribe money

 There are three possibilities in such cases:-
(i) The suspect runs away with trap money;
(ii) The suspect manages to hide it.
(iii) He swallows it or destroys it.

C.46.1 (i) If the suspect runs away, efforts should be made to

apprehend him at the earliest and obtain his hand wash. He should be
thoroughly interrogated and money recovered from the hiding place at his
instance. Such recovery is admissible u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

C.46.2 (ii) In the second case, if the suspect manages to hide the bribe
money, the investigators should first obtain his hand wash and interrogate him.
In the meantime, other members of the trap team should conduct thorough
search of the nearby areas to recover the trap money.

C.46.3 (iii) In the third case, if the investigators believe that the suspect
has swallowed the money, samples of his saliva should be immediately
obtained and sent to the notified laboratory for analysis and report about the
presence of Phenolphthalein.

C.46.4 (iv) However, despite all efforts if the money is not recovered,
the TLO should prepare a Panchanama indicating the details of the previous
and subsequent conduct of the suspect. In all such cases the happenings should
be recorded truthfully, in detail.

C.47 Mobile Trap

At times transaction of bribe does not take place at a fixed spot but while
in movement. In such cases, the trap party members may not be able to see
the transaction themselves. It is, thus important to find a suitable means for
the decoy to signal the trap party following the moving vehicle as soon as the
transaction takes place. If the decoy is driving his own car, he may signal
the payment of the bribe by blinking his car head lights, tail lights, varying the
speed or by repeatedly blowing the horn. However, in cases where the
suspect or his driver is driving the vehicle, the decoy may be briefed to use
some code words which is picked up through the hidden microphone by the
trap party trailing the suspect's vehicle. As soon as the signal is received, the
trap party swings into action to intercept the moving vehicle and catch the
suspect with the bribe money.

C.48 Site Plan

It is essential to prepare site plan of the place of trap. Whenever possible,
the site should also be photographed. While preparing the Site Plan, special
attention should be paid to the location of doors/windows/openings/curtains and
the positions taken by members of the trap party and the independent witnesses
Place where accused demanded and accepted the tainted G.C. notes, should be
invariably indicated alongwith the position of the decoy, shadow witnesses etc.
This need not necessarily be to scale, but care should be taken to prepare the
site plan as early as possible.

C.49 Form of Punchanama/Memo:

It is necessary to discuss the form in which the Pre Trap & Recovery
Panchanama is to be written. Different branches in CBI adopt different method in
preparation of Pre-Trap and Post Trap documentation. Some branches prepare
Panchanama, while some others prepare memorandum. Legally speaking,
Panchanama stands at a better footing than memorandum. Panchanama, as the
very name suggests, is the narration of facts as observed and perceived by the
Panchas, whereas memorandum is recording of facts as observed by the Police
Officer(T.L.O). In the case of the memorandum, statement by different persons
may be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C, as those statements will amount to statement
of facts before a Police Officer during investigation, which, as per law, is not to
be signed. But Panchanama does not suffer from this infirmity. Hence, the
contents of the Panchanama are admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence
Act without any dispute.

C.50 After all the formalities are over, the accused should be brought to
the office and closely interrogated. His alibi should be taken into account and
verified immediately. If circumstances warrant obtaining his specimen writing
and signature/initials, the same should be duly obtained, in the presence of
independent witnesses.

C.51 The accused may be granted bail by the T.L.O. or he may be

sought on Police remand or to be sent to Judicial remand depending on the facts
of the case. In either case, formalities of the court are to be observed . If search
u/s 165 Cr.PC has been conducted, its intimation is required to be sent to the
court & when documents have been seized during such search, the court is to
be prayed to allow retention of the documents for day to day investigation. It is
necessary that when the T.L.O approaches the court, he must carry the up to
date case diaries & the documents seized during the search.

D Further Investigation
D.1 It is desirable that after the trap materializes, further investigation of
the case be handed over to another I.O. This practice had become necessary
after observation made by the Delhi High Court in the case of Haridev Sharma
V/s State, reported in 1971 Cr. L.J. 1650, that when the raiding party incharge
becomes a witness, it would be safe to hand over the investigation of the case to
another officer. However, a Supreme Court Judgment in the State of U.P V/s
G.K. Ghosh (AIR 1984 SC 1453) states that there is little possibility of the police
officer laying the trap becoming an interested witness. Nevertheless, it is
desirable to change the I.O.
D.2 Generally, investigation of a trap case starts, after registration of
FIR u/s 7 of the PC Act, 1988. FIR u/s 7 of the PC Act can be drawn when a
public servant, as defined u/s 2(c) of the PC Act, 1988;
a. accepts, or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to
obtain,
b. for himself or for any other person,
c. any gratification, other than legal remuneration, as
d. motive or reward
D.2.1 e. (i) for showing or forbearing to show
favour or disfavour in official act
or
D.2.2 (ii) for showing or for bearing to
show favour or disfavour to any person, in exercise of
his official function
or
D.2.3 (iii) for rendering or attempting to
render any service or disservice to any person with
(a) central govt., or (b) any state govt., or (c)
Parliament, or (d) legislature of any state or (e) with
any local authority, corporation, or govt. company;
D.2.4 Thus, it would appear that facts as mentioned at (a), (b), (c) and (d)
earlier are common u/s 7 of the PC Act, but in so far as facts at para (e) are
concerned, it has to be (i) or (ii) or (iii) which indicate the purpose for which bribe
was accepted or obtained or agreed to be accepted or attempt was made to
obtain.

D.2.5 Here, the following expressions occuring in Sec. 7 of the PC Act,

should be well understood to know exactly what these expressions actually
mean;
D.3 Public Servant: Public Servant is defined u/s 2(c) of the PC Act
as under :
D.4 Obtain : It connotes effort on the part of receiver. Initiative is
taken by the receiver. If, for example, some work of 'A' is pending with 'B:, a
public servant and 'A' approaches 'B' to expedite the work, 'B' asks 'A; to pay a
certain sum of money. Here initiative to have gratification is by 'B'. It is
obtaining.

D.5 Accept: In acceptance the initiative is by the giver, to which

the person receiving consents. In the above example of obtaining if 'A' inorder to
expedite, the work pending with 'B', public servant, to which 'B' consents and
receives the same, its acceptance.

D.6 Gratification: Gratification is explained u/s 7(b) of the PC

Act, as under:-
"Gratification". The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary
gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. It implies anything capable
of giving pleasure to the senses.

D.7 Legal remuneration: This expression is also explained u/s 7(c) of

the PC Act, as under:-
"Legal remuneration". The words "legal remuneration" are not restricted to
remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all
remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation,
which he serves, to accept.

D.8 Motive : When the work is supposed to be done after gratification is paid,
then it is motive. Thus, it refers to future act.
D.9 Reward: When the work has already been done and after that gratification
is paid as consideration for the work already done, it is reward. Thus, it refers to
past act.
D.10 Official act: Work for which bribe is paid may consist of various small
works to be done for the work to be finally done. Each of such segments required
to be done for the completion of that job, are official acts..
D.11 Function: Ultimate work for which bribe is to be given, is official function.

D.12 From the perusal of Sec. 7 of the PC Act, 1988, it would appear
that following are its ingredients, hence those are to be proved during
investigation.
D.12.1 i. The accused was a public servant or expected to be a public
servant at the time when the offence was committed.
D.12.2. ii. The accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or
attempted to obtain illegal gratification from some person.
D.12.3 iii. for himself or for any other person.
D.12.4 iv. Such gratification was not a remuneration to which the
accused was legally entitled.
D.12.5 v. Such gratification was as a motive or reward for,
a. doing or forbearing to do an official act,
or
b. doing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour
to someone in the exercise of his official function,
or
c. rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to
some one with the Central or any State Government or Parliament
or the Legislature of any State, of with any local authority,
Corporation or Government company referred to in Sec. 2 Cl.(c) or
with any public servant, whether named or otherwise.

D.13 Generally, once tainted money is accepted by the accused, sec. 13(1)(d)
is added. From investigation point of view, there are differences in the
investigation of Sec. 7 and that of Sec. 13(1)(d). Even otherwise, Sec. 7 & Sec.
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 are two distinct offences, besides, others, on the
following counts:
D.13.1 (i) u/s 7, the minimum punishment is six months & maximum
upto 5 years & fine whereas for 13(1)(d), it is minimum one year & maximum 7
years respectively.
(ii) Sec. 13(1)(d) is punishable u/s 13(2) which is also punishment in
respect of other four clauses of sec. 13(1), including sec. 13(a), which is sec. 7 +
habitual. Thus, a habitual of sec. 7 has the same punishment as that of 13(1)(d).
From investigation point of view, the following are the differences between
sec. 7 & sec. 13(1)(d).

(i) u/s. 7, acceptance or agreement to obtain, attempt to obtain are

covered whereas for sec. 13(1)(d), it is only obtainment.
In the case of acceptance the initiative vests in the person who gives,
whereas in obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives.
(ii) In sec. 7, it is gratification other than legal remuneration, but in sec.
13(1)(d), it is only obtainment of valuable thing or, pecuniary advantage. The
ambit of 'gratification' is far wide than that of 'valuable thing' or 'pecuniary
advantage'
(iii) Independent evidence of motive, or reward is a must for sec. 7,
whereas, it is not the ingredient u/s 13(1(d).
(iv) Presumption as contained u/s 20 of the PC Act is applicable for
offence u/s 7 but it is not so in case of sec. 13(1)(d).

It may be borne in mind that acceptance or obtainment of the tainted

G.C. notes has to be proved by the prosecution, only then the presumption, u/s
20 of the P.C. Act shall come in to play. Merely because the tainted G.C. notes
are recovered from the possession of the accused public servant, does not, ip so
facto, prove the acceptance or obtainment. It may also be remembered that
though decoy, technically speaking, is a competent witness, but courts do not
feel comfortable in believing the sole version of the decoy.
 In Om Prakash Vs. State 1998 (4) Crimes 227, Del., it was held that in a
case under PC Act, evidence of the complainant is in the nature of accomplice
and it would not be safe to place reliance on his statement without corroboration.

69. Depending on the facts of the case, documents & audio cassettes may be
required to be sent to the Forensic Laboratory for comparison and opinion. In
CBI, the questioned writing can be sent either to the concerned G.E.Q.D (Govt.
examination of questioned documents) or to the CFSL, while the state govt.
investigating agencies send documents/exhibits to their respective forensic
science laboratories. But the hand wash collected during the trap are necessarily
sent for confirming the presence of phenolphthalein in those solutions.
Recording of the statement of the witnesses (members of the trap party,
including the T.L.O.), independent witnesses, the decoy or any other witness
should be done expeditiously. Similarly, documents, if any, further required,
should be seized, scrutinized & proved.

70. Expert Opinion

If the conversation has been tape-recorded during the verifications stage
or during the Trap, the specimen voice of the concerned person has to he
obtained in the presence of independent witnesses & the Transcript of the
cassette is to be taken and sent to the Laboratory for opinion. The sealed bottles
containing hand-wash and other exhibits should be sent to F.S.L. for Expert
Opinion and confirmation of presence of remnants of Phenolphthalein in the
solution. If some writings need expert opinion, specimen writing and admitted
writing are to be obtained & sent to the expert alongwith the questioned writings
etc. for opinion.

71. While investigating the case, evidence to prove the ingredients of the
offence should be collected :
72. After completion of investigation, if the material at hand disclose a strong
case, chargesheet u/s. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act is to be filed. If at the time of submission of the chargesheet, the accused
public servant is still in service, sanction for the prosecution is to be obtained
from the competent authority as the same would be mandatory as per section 19
of the PC Act, while obtaining the sanction to prosecute the accused, it should be
noted that sanction is valid only when it passes the two tests, viz.,
(i) It has been granted by competent authority, which means that the
authority which granted it was competent to remove the accused from service.
&
(ii) The competent authority while granting the sanction had applied its
mind.
For Sec. 19 of the PC Act, 1988 please refer para B.3.16.

D.20 In CBI, investigation report, alongwith the statement of accused, list of

documents and witnesses on which the prosecution intends to rely, copy of the
statement and documents and draft article of charges are sent to the Head of
Vigilance of the concerned organisation/Department/PSU for procuring the
sanction for prosecution. From the plain reading of Section 19 of the PC Act, it
would appear that grant of sanction for prosecution is not supposed to be
mechanical process, rather, it is mandatory for a valid sanction that the
sanctioning authority while granting sanction had applied mind. Hence,
conscious efforts should be made to ensure that the sanctioning authority
during deposition in the Court stands the volley of searching questions
asked during the cross examination so that the Court may not conclude that
the sanction was granted mechanically. For this, it is advisable to discuss the
case with the sanctioning authority alongwith the original documents and
CDs and this fact is indicated on the file in which the matter is dealt by the
sanctioning authority.
D.21 In M.M. Rajendran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998 SC 1000, which is the
leading case on the points of sanction, inter alia, it was held that sanction
accorded only on the basis of the report, is invalid. In fact, it was reiterated that
complete records are required to be considered for sanction, else due application
of mind by the sanctioning authority cannot be inferred.

D.22 Mutatis Mutandis, reverse trap U/s. 12 of the P.C. Act and trap of the tout
is done similarly. Since the bribe to be paid in the case of reverse trap is with the
abettor, the GC Notes are obviously with him, hence there is no question of
treating the same with phenolphthalein powder.

D.23 It may be noted that even if the tout or abettor of trap (u/s. 12 of the P.C.
Act) is also a public servant and remains to be so at the time of filing of the
charge sheet or when cognizance is taken, sanction for prosecution under the
P.C. Act is not required as the sanction U/s. 19 of P.C. Act is required only in
respect of Section 7, 10, 11, 13 & 15 of the P.C. Act.

D.24 After the receipt of the sanction for prosecution, charge sheet is to be filed
in the Court of the Spl. Judge empowered to try the PC Act cases and is entitled
to try the case in question.

D.25 Trap is the most effective tool in fight against corruption in public offices.
For one, its impact is visible, fast and yet deep. Besides, investigation of trap is
completed within a very short time, involving very few witnesses and documents,
hence its trial is also completed within a very short period.

D.26 Since, the situation in every trap substantially differs and there are always
constraints of time and secrecy, hence it may not be possible to adhere to the
points described herein before, hence some modifications may be necessary but
it should always be remembered that no trap should be laid without proper
verification and the Panchnama should be religiously truthful and carefully
drafted to include all factual points.