Prologue

so far we’ve seen about

1. conduct rules
2. complaint: sources, types and actions
3. Enquiries, investigation, Prevention of Corruption Act.

Now time to lay traps in bribery cases.

Traps against Bribe takers: salient feature

 CBI/ACB lays traps to catch bribe taker (and givers) red-handed.
 Benefit: The entire case unfolds by itself as the trap is laid and
executed. CBI/ACB doesn’t need to make more efforts to gather
additional evidences= less headache to collect evidence + high
conviction rate.

Two prior-conditions for laying trap (against a bribe demanding public

servant):

1. Public servant (or a middle man/tout) has demanded bribe.

2. Victim has given written complaint to CBI/ACB.

On other words,

1. CBI/ACB cannot randomly lay traps against any public

servant, just to check whether he is honest or not. Such “sting
operation” or honey-trapping is legally forbidden.
2. Just because CBI/ACB believes Mr.XYZ is in habit of taking
bribes- they cannot set a trap on him, unless someone
specifically complaints about him.

Besides, CBI/ACB can also raid a premise to catch both bribe giver
and bribe taker. (without either of them complaining)

Secret Verification
Just because someone gave a written complaint = doesn’t mean
CBI/ACB immediately lays a trap. The standard operating procedure
is following:
 1. CBI/ACB officer will ask the complainant to be ready with money
and await further instructions. (yes the victim has to arrange
money. CBI/ACB won’t help him arrange money)
2. In the meantime, the officer will start a swift secret verification:
a. To check background of the complainant.
b. To check background of the public servant.
c. To check complainant’s relation with the given public
servant.

ok but WHY take above precautions?

1. Once caught, corrupt officer usually makes “Loan theory”

defense. In the court, he’d say “I had given loan to that
complainant. But he doesn’t want to repay, so got me caught in
this fake trap.”
2. Sometimes, complainant himself is a dubious character. e.g.
Contractor Prem Chopra had prior bribe relation with that
Engineer Pran. But now Pran has mad new bribe arrangement
with another contractor so Prem wants to take revenge.
3. Sometimes, Officer is honest. Complainant is the bad guy- who
wants revenge for some other matter (not giving illegal favours,
property dispute, family dispute, love triangle etc.etc.) hence he
is filling the fake bribe complaint just for mental harassment to
honest officer.

Prior permission required

let’s ignore CBI for a while and focus on ACB.
After the secret verification, ACB officer has found the complaint to be
genuine. Still he cannot immediately lay trap. He has to get
permission

When complaint is against need permission from ___ before

___ laying trap

state-PSU/state service
Director General (DG) of ACB
employee/private citizen

All India Service Officer (IAS,  DG of ACB has to get

IPS, IFoS) under the state permission from Chief Secretary.
government  AND in turn, Chief secretary has
to get permission from Chief
Minister before giving permission
to DG-ACB!

These are safeguards in Andhra. Other states may have slight

difference in the technicalities.
These safeguards are meant to prevent ACB from turning into Hitler’s
Gestapo Police. But over the years, these safeguards have become
shackles:

1. sometimes petty employees in DG-ACB/Chief Secretary’s office

(=clerks, peons, section officers) leak the information about the
upcoming raid/trap to that corruption official for getting ‘bakshish’
(reward)
2. Sometimes Chief Secretary / CM may not give permission
because they themselves involved in the scam indirectly. Or
because they don’t want to create a scene. e.g CM took money
from the corrupt officer to get him transferred to that given plum-
posting in the first place!

Similarly, CBI has to get central government’s permission before

inquiring/ investigating any officers of joint Secretary level and above.

Registration of FIR
So far ACB officer has:

1. received written complaint

2. made secret verification, found the complaint to be genuine
3. Got permission from Director General of ACB to lay the trap.

STILL he cannot lay the trap. Now he has to register a First

Information Report (FIR). This F.I.R. together with the original
complaint is sent to “Special” Judge for Anti-Corruption. (This is the
same special judge we saw in previous article related to prevention of
Corruption Act (PCA).
Special Judge has to keep this FIR secret in his personal custody until
trap is executed.
 Independent Witnesses
After above technicalities are finished. ACB officer has to get :

1. Trap cases need indepent person to witness the transaction +/-

overhear the talk between victim and suspect public servant.
2. So, ACB has to get one such witness to accompany victim to the
trap scene.
3. ACB officer can use private citizen / another government servant
from a different Department to act as witness.
4. Public servant, particularly gazetted officer, should assist as
witness in a bribe trap, whenever CBI/ACB/Local police requests
him.
5. If he refuses=violation of conduct rules.
6. However he should refuse to become witness, IF he knows the
accused personally OR if he has already appeared as witness in
another trap case. (Because otherwise defense lawyer may
raise doubt on his credibility.)

Phenolphthalein Test
Phenolphthalein is a light white powder and slightly soluble in water

1. Phenolphthalein + acidic solution = colorless

2. Phenolphthalein + neutral solution =colorless
3. Phenolphthalein + alkaline/basic solution =pink color.

In ACB traps, currency notes are treated with phenolphthalein

powder. This powder adheres to the notes’ surface but hardly visible
to the naked eye.
If goods are demanded as bribe- they can also be coated with
phenolphthalein powder. e.g. box of iphone /laptop/camera etc.
After corrupt official accepts (touches) those currency notes or
goods=> following procedure is done

1. ACB team prepares a solution of sodium carbonate (washing

soda) in a tumbler.
2. Then corrupt official is asked to dip his fingers inside this
tumbler= solution becomes pink. Because washing
soda=alkaline. And Phenolphthalein + alkaline medium=pink
 color. (by the way, once UPSC had asked this chemical principle
in prelims MCQ).

Search of premises
 Normally an officer caught redhanded accepting bribe- he may
be a habitual bribe-taker and possibly in possession of
disproportionate assets.
 Therefore, ACB raids the house of the public servant and his
relatives, in the presence of mediators and witnesses of the
locality
 bank lockers, documents related to investment, currency notes,
etc. are seized.

Trap Success
 The concerned department has to suspend the guilty official
immediately. He is presented in the special court for anti-
corruption. Judge decides whether he is guilty / how much jail
time, as per the Prevention of Corruption Act.
 Parallel to that court proceeding, the department initiates its own
departmental proceeding- to dismiss him and if he has retired
then to withhold his entire pension and gratuity.

Trap Failure
Nowadays, the corrupt officials have become cautious. They avoid
touching Phenolphthalein coated currency notes by themselves. For
example

1. They ask the victim to place notes in a folder.

2. They ask bribes in non-physical format e.g. mobile recharge.
3. They get the notes exchanged. e.g. take victim to a shop. Ask
him to give 1000 rupee note (Phenolphthalein coated) to that
shopkeeper in exchange of two fresh notes of Rs.500.
4. They ‘outsource’ bribe collection work to a middleman. e.g.
junior staff/ peon/ some ‘dalal’ (agent) type unemployed person.
5. If caught, they threaten, coerce, and harass the witnesses to
change their testimony.

However these ‘dirty tricks’ don’t always protect them. In the absence
of direct evidences- even circumstantial evidences can be used for
corroboration and guilty can be punished. Even if all witnesses turn
hostile. (Upheld by HCs and SC in many cases.)

Trap Failure: follow up action?

Most Department / PSUs have following policy:

 Once ACB sends report to Head of Department that Mr.xyz is

directly / indirectly caught accepting bribe. He is placed under
suspension, irrespective of whether the phenolphthalein test
yielded positive result or not.
 Even if trap completely fails (i.e. neither the accused nor his
middlemen accepts notes), the accused official is transferred to
a non-focus post, pending further inquiry by the department
itself.
 As we saw earlier, an ACB/CBI officer has to seek so many
permissions/precautions before laying a trap. So, if he got
permission to lay the trap= indeed something was fishy about
that accused official. Hence it is justified to transfer him to a non-
focal post.

Loan theory
 (real case): official caught red-handed accepting bribe from a
contractor. Got acquitted in court using the ‘loan theory’
i.e. Contractor wasn’t giving me bribe but he was repaying loan
that I had given him earlier.
 But despite court acquittal, he had to face departmental inquiry
for violating conduct rules i.e. officer should not lend money to
people he has official dealings with.
 Subsequently he was removed from the government service.
 Art. 20 (Double jeopardy) doesn’t protect from departmental
proceedings, even if a person is acquitted in court proceedings.

Supreme Court on Trap failures

1. SC has upheld the conviction against the official even when the
complainant and witnesses turned hostile during court
proceedings.
2. SC has upheld conviction against official even when he used a
middlemen to get the bribes and did not touch the notes by
himself.
 3. SC has observed that circumstantial evidences can also be used
for corroboration in bribe cases, if witnesses turn hostile. Direct
evidences to link corrupt official with currency notes
(phenolphthalein)= not always necessary to convict the accused.

so far we learned about Bribe takers but what about….

Action against Bribe givers

 Dishonest traders, contractors, power-brokers and jholachhap
NGOs always attempt to bribe public servants to get illegal
favors.
 Honest officers refuse bribes and think their duty is over. But
that alone is not sufficient. Because the contractor might still
bribe his junior / senior officer to get illegal favors.
 Therefore, when bribe is offered, honest officer should postpone
the deal for some future time, and bring the matter to CBI/ACB
officer, so that a trap can be laid and bribe giver can be
apprehended red handed.
 If for some reasons, it is not possible to contact the CBI/ACB/
the local police authorities immediately, then what to do?
 Honest officer should ask the bribe-giver to wait for a short time
and get any person nearby to witness the transaction and to
overhear the conversation between the bribe giver and the
public servant. Then he should call up CBI/ACB/ the local police
authorities as soon as possible. (this is CVC directive.)

If such action is taken, other unscrupulous people will think twice

before offering bribes to any public servant.

CBI FAQ on trap

Before we see a few case studies, let’s check CBI’s official FAQ for
traps- for some education/awareness:
Q. What is a ‘trap’? We often read in newspapers that CBI has
caught a public servant in a trap.
The process of catching such corrupt public servants red handed
while they demand and take bribes is popularly called the ‘trap’. It is
not a legal term. A set procedure has been devised in CBI to lay a
trap against a corrupt public servant.
Q. Who provides the money used for laying the trap?
The money has to be provided by the complainant and none else.
Q. What happens to the money of the complainant provided for
laying trap?

 Such money is an important piece of evidence during court trial.

 We (CBI) put that money in court along with chargesheet.
 After completion of trial, court orders return of the money to the
complainant.
 Thus eventually money returned to the complainant after
completion of the trial.
 But keeping in view the hardships (in long pending cases)-we
refund an equivalent amount of money to the victim after filing of
the charge sheet.

Q. If the complainant is so poor that he cannot arrange bribe

money, does it mean that no action can be taken against a
corrupt public servant, who demands bribe?

 Certainly not. Action can be taken in such situations also.

 As per the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sheer demand of
bribe is a punishable offence.
 It is not necessary to prove that public servant accepted bribe.
Even if it can be proved that public servant demanded bribe=>he
can be convicted.
 Laying of trap is just a means of collection of evidence to prove
the guilt. It is preferred because it facilitates collection of good
evidence and makes a case full proof.
 In the absence of trap, it is difficult to collect evidence of demand
of bribe. It, however, does not mean that laying of trap is
mandatory and nothing can be done in the absence of a trap.

Q We have often heard that not only bribe taking but bribe giving
is also an offence under the law. In that case is not the
complainant who hands over the bribe amount to the accused for
laying trap is also an accused?

 Certainly, bribe giving is also an offence as per of the Prevention

of Corruption Act. But only when it is given voluntarily.
 if the victim comes to law enforcement agencies soon after
demand of bribe by a public servant- he is protected from
 prosecution. (e.g. victim giving bribe to public servant during a
trap=>victim is not committing crime)

Q. What should an honest public servant do, when he is offered

bribe by a person?

 As mentioned in the previous answer, voluntarily giving or

offering bribe is also a punishable offence under the Prevention
of Corruption Act.
 In such a case the honest public servant should inform CBI as
soon as such an offer is made by a person. In fact such a bribe
giver can also be caught red handed by laying a trap on the
complaint of the honest public servant.
 The honest public servant shall, therefore, take steps to get such
persons punished, rather than ignoring or just reprimanding
them. This will deter the unscrupulous elements from bribe
giving.

Q. It is often heard, that public servants in higher positions don’t

demand or take bribes directly but through the touts or
middlemen. Does CBI take action against such touts or
middlemen also?

 Most certainly. Prevention of Corruption Act, also provides

punishment to such touts/middlemen and the public servants
who employ such touts/middlemen.
 On getting information/complaints against such
touts/middlemen, CBI lays trap against them with the help of the
complainant or otherwise.
 CBI requests the general public to provide information about
such known touts/middlemen, who are active in many public
offices of the Central Government.
 CBI takes steps to verify such information at its own level and
ensure action against such touts/middlemen even without a
complainant.

Q. Are there cases, when CBI has simultaneously taken action

against the willing bribe giver and the bribe taker?
Yes, there have been such cases. If CBI receives information about a
willing bribe giver and bribe taker from any genuine source before the
bribe is actually handed over, it verifies such information and lays a
trap to catch both the bribe giver and bribe taker red handed.

Case Studies
Trap for “Good” Blackmail
DevAnand and GuruDutt are two CBI officials investigating the
missing files in coal-gate. They suspect Joint Secretary Prem Chopra
in coal ministry has hid/destroyed those files- or atleast he knows
something. But so far, they’ve found no leads, tips, witnesses or
evidences to link Prem Chopra with this crime.
CBI chief Pran humiliates them on daily basis for being
lazy/idiots/incompetent etc. he has told them “I want result by ANY
MEANS necessary, because Media has blown this news out of
proportion. I don’t want any more negative publicity for CBI.”
Guru becomes restless and proposes following plan to DevAnand:

1. I’ll get a friend of mine to pose as a canteen operator.

2. He’ll approach Joint Secretary Prem Chopra with bribes to get
the canteen contract for in coal ministry’s building.
3. From what I’ve heard, Prem does accept bribes for canteen
contracts, office stationary etc. So I’m damn sure Prem will
accept the bribe, we’ll catch him red handed in the trap and use
that to blackmail him to reveal everything he knows.
4. We’ll also offer to make him government witness and immunity if
he reveals where the files are hidden- so ‘carrot and sticks’ this
will work and we’ll get our job done!

What should DevAnand do?

Hint:

 To setup a trap, two conditions must be met:

1. Public servant has demanded bribe
2. victim has given written complaint.

(OR CBI has received credible information that bribe exchange is

going to happen at xyz place.)

 Otherwise, CBI cannot randomly lay traps on a public servant

merely out of suspicion or just to check his honesty.
So, Answer is No- Dev shouldn’t participate in this plan of GuruDutt.
He should try to dissuade Guru from executing this plan. If Guru
doesn’t listen then he should inform their superior officer.
btw, if Dev snitches about Guru to their boss- isn’t that ‘unethical /
betrayal of trust”? No, because conduct rules demand that Dev should
inform his superior about any wrongdoings going in the office. He too
may face disciplinary action, if he passively allows Guru to continue
with his plan.
Mercy on the Middleman

Sunny Deol needs domicile certificate to apply in Indian Army as

soldier.Tehsildar asks him to fillup a form and get certificate from local
police that no criminal case is registered against him. Head Constable
demands Rs.500 to get this work done. Sunny approaches local ACB
officer DevAnand. A trap is laid and constable is caught red handed
accepting the bribe. Dev starts the paperwork but suddenly leave the
room to attend a phone call. Now only Sunny and HeadConstable are
left in the room. Head Constable tells Sunny following:

1. Listen son, I’ll give you 5000 rupees if you take back your
complaint right now and I’ll also get you your domicile certificate
immediately.
2. And God forbid, if you fail in that soldier recruitment, I promise
you, I’ll get you a job at my brother-in-law’s garment shop.
3. If this matter goes to court, you’ll have to appear as witness
every now and then. It’ll create lot of inconvenience to you,
affect your studies for whatever other competitive exams you’re
preparing for.
4. I was merely following order of my boss. I don’t even get 50
rupees out of this 500. My daughter’s wedding upcoming, I’m
about to retired. So please show mercy. I’m not the real bad guy
here, but a victim of circumstances just like you’re.
5. Besides, even if I’m convicted, this corruption will continue.
Nothing will change. so please help me out.

Hint

 of course no. Once caught, all corrupt public servant make this
type of emotional pleas. Sunny must help Dev to an example out
of this head constable to deter others from participating in
corruption of their bosses.
  Under Prevention of corruption Act, Courts have upheld
conviction of corrupt public servants- even where
witnesses/complainant turned hostile during court proceeding.
This constable’s game is over- irrespective of what Sunny does.
 Besides, once convicted, he is unlikely to keep his ‘promise’ (of
getting Sunny job in his brother in law’s garment shop).
Therefore Sunny shouldn’t bother helping him.

No time for small traps

DevAnand and Guru Dutt are two inspectors in ACB. One day, poor
farmer visits their office complaining how a Patwari is demanding 100
rupee for land records, via a middleman. Guru gives him Rs.100
rupees note out of his own pocket, “give it to midleman and get your
work done. We’ve not time for such small traps.” DevAnand is
appalled, but Guru explains him following:

1. you know it well the amount of technicalities and procedures to

be followed if we want to lay a trap for this petty case of 100
rupees bribe.
2. Secondly, this Patwari is not taking bribes by himself but has
hired a middleman. Even if we catch this middleman red-
handed, it’ll take a hell load of investigation and paperwork to
corroborate his link with the official.
3. Overall, we’d be occupied for no less than five months in this
stupid case.
4. Tax payer’s money is better spent IF we pour our time and effort
in catching the bigger fishes instead- who demand thousands
and lakhs of rupees as bribes.
5. Still if you want to proceed then go ahead, do it on your own. I’ll
not help in this stupid trap or investigation.

What should DevAnand do?

hints:

1. GuruDutt’s logic is faulty. It is not just one case of 100 rupees.

Patwari is demanding bribes from all farmers. And most
probably other Patwaris in nearby villages also doing the same.
so collectively the scam runs in lakhs of rupees + the amount of
agony and hardship caused to poor farmers=you can’t put a
price tag on everything.
2. Dev should try to convince Guru why it is in public interest to
chase even petty cases- to set fear in the hearts of all other
petty officials who demand bribes.
3. IF Guru doesn’t agree, Dev should initiate trap proceeding by
himself and inform their boss about Guru’s approach towards
work, conduct rules and [Ethics].