Can the conviction of a senior constable be overturned when the only evidence is testimony from officers who conducted the sting?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a senior constable attached to a police outpost in a border district of Punjab is alleged to have demanded and received money from a local trader during a covert operation designed to catch illicit trade in contraband cigarettes.

The investigating agency, acting on a complaint lodged by a market vendor, initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and conducted a “trap” in which senior officers, disguised as ordinary citizens, approached the trader and offered to facilitate the illegal purchase for a fee. The trader, believing the offer genuine, handed over a bundle of cash, which the officers later seized. The constable was arrested on the basis of the statements of the officers who had participated in the sting, as well as the trader’s own testimony.

At trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the accounts of the “raiding party” officers, arguing that their statements were trustworthy because they were made under oath and were corroborated by the cash recovered from the constable’s possession. The defence counsel contended that the officers were interested parties and that no independent witness had observed the actual transfer of money, thereby challenging the admissibility and probative value of their testimony.

The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, concluded that the “raiding party” testimony, though partisan, was admissible and that the recovery of the cash from the constable’s locker constituted sufficient corroboration. Consequently, the constable was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code for accepting a bribe and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

Following the conviction, the constable filed a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, asserting that the trial court had erred in its assessment of the evidentiary material. The appeal specifically raised the issue of whether the statements of officers who had orchestrated the sting could be treated as reliable without independent corroboration, and whether the mere recovery of cash from the accused’s possession satisfied the legal requirement of corroboration.

The appellate court was confronted with a legal problem that could not be resolved by a simple factual defence. The constable’s denial of the alleged bribe was insufficient because the prosecution’s case rested on the credibility of the “raiding party” witnesses. The crux of the matter lay in the proper application of evidentiary principles governing interested witnesses and the necessity of independent corroboration, a question that required judicial interpretation rather than a factual rebuttal.

Recognizing that the ordinary defence would not address the core evidentiary issue, the constable’s counsel sought relief through a criminal appeal, the appropriate proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure for challenging a conviction on points of law and evidence. The appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court offered a forum to examine whether the trial court had correctly applied the legal standards governing the admissibility of “raiding party” testimony.

In preparing the appeal, the constable engaged a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who meticulously drafted the petition, highlighting precedents that rejected a rigid rule mandating the exclusion of interested witnesses absent independent corroboration. The counsel also referenced judgments where courts had upheld the admissibility of such testimony provided the overall circumstances rendered the account probable.

The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, evaluated the credibility of the “raiding party” officers, the nature of their interest, and the extent of corroborative material. The court noted that while the officers were indeed participants in the sting, they were not accomplices to the alleged offence of bribery. Moreover, the recovery of cash from the constable’s locker, coupled with the trader’s consistent statements, was deemed to constitute material corroboration sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Consequently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the trial court had not erred in admitting the “raiding party” testimony nor in finding the recovered cash to be adequate corroboration. The decision clarified that the testimony of interested witnesses is not per se inadmissible and that independent corroboration, though desirable, is not an absolute prerequisite where the totality of evidence renders the prosecution’s case probable.

The outcome illustrates why the remedy lay before the Punjab and Haryana High Court: the legal question centered on the interpretation of evidentiary rules, a matter squarely within the jurisdiction of a High Court hearing a criminal appeal. An ordinary factual defence would not have resolved the dispute, whereas a petition for appeal allowed the parties to argue the proper legal standards and obtain a definitive ruling on the admissibility of “raiding party” evidence.

Legal practitioners, such as lawyers in Chandigarh High Court and lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, often encounter similar scenarios where the crux of the defence hinges on evidentiary nuances rather than factual denials. In such cases, filing a criminal appeal before the appropriate High Court is the strategic route to address the legal deficiencies identified at trial.

Question: Did the trial court correctly admit the testimony of the officers who orchestrated the sting operation despite their status as interested witnesses, or should the lack of an independent, neutral observer have mandated exclusion of their statements?

Answer: The factual matrix reveals that the senior constable was apprehended after a covert operation in which several police officers, disguised as ordinary citizens, approached the trader and solicited a payment. Those officers subsequently testified that the constable received the cash, and their statements formed the core of the prosecution’s case. Under established evidentiary principles, a witness who is a party to the transaction or who has a vested interest is not automatically disqualified; rather, the court must assess the reliability of the testimony in the context of the surrounding circumstances. In this scenario, the officers were participants in the sting but not accomplices to the alleged bribery; they were acting under the direction of the investigating agency. Their interest lay in establishing the occurrence of the alleged offence, not in protecting the accused. The trial court, therefore, was required to evaluate whether the officers’ statements were corroborated by other material. The presence of the recovered cash, the trader’s consistent account, and the fact that the officers made their statements under oath and were subject to cross‑examination collectively mitigated the risk of bias. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the trial court’s discretion to admit such testimony was exercised within the bounds of law, given that the prosecution presented additional evidence that rendered the officers’ accounts probable. Conversely, the defence could contend that the absence of an independent eyewitness renders the testimony vulnerable to fabrication. Nonetheless, jurisprudence holds that the admissibility of interested witnesses hinges on the totality of evidence rather than a rigid rule of exclusion. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to admit the officers’ testimony aligns with the legal standard that interested testimony is permissible when the overall evidential picture supports its reliability, and the appellate court must respect that discretionary assessment unless a palpable error is demonstrated.

Question: Is the mere recovery of cash from the accused’s locker sufficient as corroboration of the alleged bribe, or does the law require a higher threshold of independent proof to sustain a conviction?

Answer: The prosecution’s case rested on two pillars: the testimony of the “raiding party” officers and the physical recovery of a bundle of cash from the constable’s locker. The legal doctrine concerning corroboration does not impose an absolute requirement that an independent witness must have observed the exact transaction; rather, it mandates that the evidence must render the charge probable. In this instance, the recovered cash directly links the accused to the alleged receipt of money, providing a tangible link that supports the officers’ narrative. The trader’s testimony that he handed over the cash further aligns with the physical evidence, creating a consistent chain of events. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would emphasize that corroboration can be satisfied by any material that confirms a material fact of the prosecution’s case, and the cash serves precisely that function by substantiating the claim that the accused possessed the bribe money. Moreover, the recovery was conducted under the supervision of the investigating agency, reducing the likelihood of tampering. While the defence may argue that the cash could have been planted or that its presence alone does not prove the transaction, the totality of circumstances—officers’ sworn statements, the trader’s consistent account, and the undisputed possession of the money—collectively satisfy the evidentiary threshold. The jurisprudential approach accepts that corroboration need not be independent in the sense of a separate eyewitness; it must simply be material that makes the prosecution’s story credible. Therefore, the recovery of cash from the accused’s locker, when viewed alongside the testimonial evidence, fulfills the legal requirement for corroboration, allowing the conviction to stand unless the appellate court finds a procedural flaw or a misapprehension of the evidential standards.

Question: What is the appropriate legal remedy for the constable after his conviction, and why does a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court constitute the correct forum for challenging the trial court’s findings?

Answer: Following a conviction in a criminal trial, the aggrieved party is entitled to seek redress through the appellate mechanism prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The constable’s primary relief is the setting aside of the conviction on the ground that the trial court erred in its assessment of the admissibility and weight of the “raiding party” testimony and the sufficiency of corroboration. A criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the statutory avenue for such a challenge, as the High Court possesses jurisdiction to review findings of fact and law arising from the trial court’s judgment. The appeal enables the constable, through his counsel, to argue that the trial court misapplied evidentiary principles, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The High Court can examine the record, evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the legal standards governing interested testimony were correctly applied. Moreover, the appellate forum provides an opportunity to raise any procedural irregularities, such as denial of a fair opportunity to cross‑examine or the improper admission of evidence, which could have prejudiced the defence. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would stress that the High Court’s power to entertain revisions, appeals, and writs ensures that the constable’s constitutional right to a fair trial is protected. The appellate process also allows for a comprehensive re‑examination of the factual matrix, which is essential when the dispute hinges on nuanced evidentiary issues rather than a straightforward factual denial. Consequently, the criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the appropriate and exclusive remedy to contest the conviction, offering a structured legal pathway to potentially overturn the judgment or modify the sentence.

Question: How does the vested interest of the “raiding party” witnesses influence the assessment of their credibility, and what legal standards guide the High Court in weighing such testimony against the defence’s objections?

Answer: The “raiding party” witnesses were police officers who actively participated in the sting operation, thereby possessing a direct interest in the outcome of the case. Their involvement creates a presumption of bias, compelling the court to scrutinize their statements with heightened vigilance. However, jurisprudence distinguishes between outright accomplices, whose testimony is inherently suspect, and interested witnesses, whose evidence is not per se inadmissible. The legal standard requires the court to consider the totality of circumstances, including the witnesses’ character, the consistency of their accounts, the presence of corroborative material, and the rigor of cross‑examination. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the officers’ interest does not automatically vitiate their testimony; rather, the trial court must assess whether the evidence rendered their narrative probable. In this case, the officers’ statements were corroborated by the recovered cash and the trader’s testimony, which collectively diminish the risk of fabrication. The High Court, when evaluating such testimony, applies a two‑fold test: first, determining the nature and extent of the witness’s interest, and second, assessing whether independent or circumstantial evidence supports the core allegation. The defence’s objection hinges on the claim that the officers could have fabricated the transaction to justify the arrest. Yet, the presence of physical evidence and the consistency of the trader’s account provide a factual scaffold that bolsters the officers’ credibility. The High Court must balance the inherent bias against the corroborative strength of the evidence, ensuring that the conviction rests on a foundation of probative material rather than mere conjecture. Accordingly, the legal standards guide the court to admit the testimony if it is found reliable in the context of the overall evidential matrix, and to reject it only if the bias overwhelms any corroborative support.

Question: If the High Court were to quash the conviction, what procedural consequences would follow regarding the FIR, the status of the investigation, and the potential for further legal action against the constable?

Answer: A quashing of the conviction by the High Court would constitute a definitive judicial determination that the trial court’s judgment was unsustainable on legal grounds. The immediate procedural effect would be the nullification of the conviction and the associated sentence, thereby restoring the constable’s legal status as presumed innocent. The FIR, which initiated the criminal proceedings, would remain on record, but the case would be closed without a conviction, effectively ending the prosecution’s burden of proof. The investigating agency would be required to file a closure report, indicating that the matter has been disposed of in accordance with the High Court’s order. This closure would preclude any further prosecution on the same factual allegations, as the principle of res judicata would bar re‑initiation of proceedings. However, the constable could still be subject to disciplinary action under service rules, which operate independently of criminal liability. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise that while the criminal liability is extinguished, the administrative consequences may persist, and the constable might seek relief through service tribunals. Additionally, the quashing could have reputational implications, prompting the constable to pursue a civil defamation claim against the complainant if false allegations are proven. The prosecution, on the other hand, may consider filing a revision or a review petition if it believes the High Court erred in its legal reasoning, though such avenues are limited and subject to stringent criteria. Overall, the quashing would terminate the criminal process, restore the constable’s liberty, and shift any remaining disputes to the administrative or civil domain, ensuring that the legal system rectifies the miscarriage of justice while preserving procedural integrity.

Question: What procedural remedy is available for the constable to contest his conviction and why does that remedy fall within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The constable’s conviction can be attacked by filing a criminal appeal under the provisions that empower a High Court to hear appeals from judgments of subordinate courts in criminal matters. Because the trial was conducted by a district court in Punjab, the appellate authority is the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which has territorial jurisdiction over all courts in the state and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The appeal is not a fresh trial but a review of the legal correctness of the trial court’s findings, especially the admissibility of the “raiding party” testimony and the adequacy of the cash recovery as corroboration. The High Court’s jurisdiction is triggered by the fact that the conviction was rendered under a criminal law and the appeal is filed within the prescribed period after the judgment. The High Court can examine questions of law, the application of evidentiary principles, and any procedural irregularities that may have affected the fairness of the trial. Since the factual matrix involves a police officer acting in his official capacity, the High Court is also the appropriate forum to interpret the legal standards governing interested witnesses and the necessity of independent corroboration. The appellate process therefore provides a structured avenue for the constable to raise legal objections that cannot be resolved by merely presenting new factual material. By engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, the constable ensures that the petition is drafted in compliance with the High Court’s rules of procedure, that the necessary annexures such as the FIR, trial court judgment, and evidentiary extracts are correctly annexed, and that service of notice on the prosecution is effected in the manner prescribed. The High Court’s power to entertain the appeal, to grant bail pending the outcome, or to issue a writ of certiorari if there is a jurisdictional defect, underscores why the remedy lies before that particular high court.

Question: How does an accused initiate a criminal appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and what procedural steps must be observed in preparing and filing the petition?

Answer: The first step is to engage a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who will examine the trial court judgment to identify the precise legal errors. The appeal must be presented in the form of a petition that sets out the grounds of appeal, each ground being a concise statement of the alleged error of law or mis‑application of evidentiary principles. The petition must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment, the FIR, the charge sheet, and any relevant documents such as the cash recovery report. The petitioner must also attach an affidavit verifying that the appeal is filed within the statutory time limit. After the petition is drafted, it is filed at the registry of the High Court, where a case number is assigned and the petition is entered into the cause list. The filing fee is paid, and a copy of the petition is served on the State prosecution, usually through the public prosecutor’s office. The High Court then issues a notice to the prosecution, inviting a response to the grounds of appeal. The parties may be directed to file written statements and affidavits supporting their respective positions. The court may also schedule a hearing where oral arguments are presented. During the hearing, the counsel for the accused will focus on the legal standards governing the admissibility of statements by interested witnesses and the requirement of corroboration, arguing that the trial court erred in treating the cash recovery as sufficient proof. The counsel may also raise procedural issues such as denial of the right to cross‑examine the “raiding party” witnesses. Throughout the process, the lawyer ensures compliance with the High Court’s rules on formatting, pagination, and citation of precedents. The procedural route is designed to allow the High Court to scrutinise the legal correctness of the conviction without re‑examining the entire factual matrix, thereby providing a focused avenue for relief.

Question: Why is a purely factual defence inadequate at the appellate stage and what legal issues must be framed for the High Court to entertain the appeal?

Answer: At the appellate stage the High Court does not re‑hear the evidence but reviews the trial court’s application of law to the evidence that was already admitted. Consequently, the accused cannot simply reiterate that he did not accept any money because the factual dispute has already been resolved by the trial court’s findings. The High Court requires the appellant to identify specific legal errors, such as whether the trial court correctly applied the principle that statements of interested witnesses are admissible only when supported by independent corroboration. The appellant must also argue whether the recovery of cash from the accused’s locker constitutes sufficient corroboration or whether the prosecution failed to produce an independent witness to the actual transaction. Another legal issue is whether the trial court erred in its assessment of the credibility of the “raiding party” officers, who were participants in the sting operation and therefore had a vested interest. The appellant may contend that the trial court gave undue weight to their testimony without proper scrutiny, violating the principle that such testimony must be approached with caution. Additionally, the appellant can raise procedural infirmities, for example, whether the accused was denied the opportunity to cross‑examine the officers or whether the charge sheet accurately reflected the allegations. By framing these legal questions, the appellant enables the High Court to consider whether the conviction rests on a sound legal foundation. The focus on legal issues rather than new factual material aligns with the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, which is to correct errors of law, ensure consistency in the application of evidentiary standards, and safeguard the rights of the accused. Engaging lawyers in Chandigarh High Court or lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court can assist in articulating these precise legal arguments and in citing relevant precedents that support the appellant’s position.

Question: What factors influence the choice of counsel and why might the accused consider retaining a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court or lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court for this appeal?

Answer: The selection of counsel is guided by the complexity of the legal issues, the need for expertise in criminal appellate practice, and the geographical jurisdiction of the forum. Because the appeal is to be filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is prudent to engage a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who is familiar with the procedural rules, case management system, and the expectations of the judges of that bench. Such counsel can draft the petition in the precise format required, anticipate procedural objections, and present oral arguments effectively. However, the accused may also seek advice from lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, especially if the accused resides in Chandigarh or if the matter involves cross‑border elements that could invoke the jurisdiction of the Union Territory’s high court. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court possess insight into local practice, can coordinate with the Punjab and Haryana High Court counsel, and may assist in gathering documentary evidence from agencies located in Chandigarh. Moreover, the accused might consider a team approach where a senior advocate from the Punjab and Haryana High Court leads the appeal while a junior lawyer from Chandigarh High Court handles interlocutory matters, such as applications for bail or interim relief. The combined expertise ensures that the appeal is robustly presented, that procedural compliance is maintained, and that any ancillary applications are promptly addressed. The decision to retain counsel from either high court also reflects strategic considerations such as the reputation of the advocate, prior success in similar evidentiary disputes, and the ability to negotiate with the prosecution for a possible settlement. Ultimately, the choice of counsel directly impacts the quality of legal arguments, the effectiveness of advocacy, and the likelihood of obtaining a favorable decision from the High Court.

Question: How can the defence strategically challenge the admissibility and weight of the “raiding party” officers’ testimony given the lack of an independent eyewitness to the exact moment of the alleged payment?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the senior constable was convicted primarily on the sworn statements of officers who deliberately staged the sting and on the recovery of cash from his locker. The legal problem centres on whether such interested witnesses may be treated as reliable without an independent corroborative observation of the transaction. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would first examine the trial record for any indication that the officers were granted immunity, that they were party to the alleged offence, or that they had a motive to fabricate. The High Court has repeatedly held that interested witnesses are not per se inadmissible but that their testimony must be examined in the totality of circumstances. The defence can argue that the prosecution failed to meet the threshold of “probable” testimony because the only corroboration – the cash found – is merely circumstantial and does not directly link the constable to the act of demanding money. By highlighting the absence of an independent witness to the hand‑over of cash, the defence can request that the appellate court apply a stricter test of corroboration, emphasizing that the recovered cash could have been placed there by a third party or through an unlawful search. The procedural consequence of a successful challenge would be the quashing of the conviction on evidentiary grounds, leading to an order of acquittal or a remand for fresh trial. Practically, this strategy reduces the risk of the constable remaining incarcerated and opens the door for a possible settlement with the investigating agency. Moreover, it signals to the prosecution that future operations must be documented with neutral witnesses or video evidence to avoid similar challenges. The defence should also prepare a detailed affidavit from an independent expert on forensic cash handling to undermine the prosecution’s claim of direct linkage, thereby strengthening the appeal’s chances of overturning the conviction.

Question: Which documentary materials should the defence obtain and scrutinise to expose procedural irregularities in the investigation and to support a revision or bail application?

Answer: The factual backdrop includes an FIR lodged by a market vendor, a trap operation report, statements of the “raiding party”, a cash recovery inventory, and the trader’s testimony. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would advise the constable to file a comprehensive application for production of all case‑files under the right to inspect the investigation file. Key documents are the original FIR, the trap plan, the log of officers’ deployment, the audio or video recordings of the encounter if any, the forensic report on the cash, and the search‑witness statements. The defence must verify whether the trap was authorised by a competent officer, whether the accused was informed of his right to counsel before interrogation, and whether the cash was seized in accordance with the procedural safeguards. Any discrepancy, such as a missing sign‑in sheet for the locker search or an unsigned recovery memo, can be raised as a procedural defect that vitiates the evidence. In a bail application, the defence can argue that the investigation was tainted by procedural lapses, diminishing the likelihood of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence. For a revision, the defence can point out that the trial court erred in admitting the “raiding party” statements without proper corroboration, and that the investigating agency failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of an independent witness to the transaction. The practical implication is that exposing these defects may persuade the High Court to grant bail pending appeal, or even to set aside the conviction on the ground of a compromised investigation, thereby protecting the accused from further custodial hardship.

Question: What are the risks and considerations surrounding the constable’s current custody status and the prospects of obtaining bail while the appeal is pending?

Answer: The constable is presently serving a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, which raises immediate concerns about his liberty, health, and ability to participate in his defence. The legal issue revolves around whether the High Court can balance the gravity of the alleged bribery offence against the presumption of innocence pending appeal. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would assess the bail criteria, focusing on the nature of the offence, the strength of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses, and the duration of the sentence already served. The defence can argue that the conviction rests on questionable testimony, that the constable has no prior criminal record, and that his role as a police officer actually makes him less likely to abscond. Moreover, the constable’s health records, if any, can be presented to underscore the humanitarian aspect of bail. The procedural consequence of a successful bail application is the release of the accused from custody, allowing him to actively cooperate with counsel, gather further evidence, and attend hearings without the constraints of imprisonment. Conversely, denial of bail would prolong custodial hardship and could impair the defence’s ability to mount an effective appeal, especially if the constable’s health deteriorates. Practically, the defence should file an interim bail petition citing the procedural defects identified in the investigation, the lack of independent corroboration, and the pending appeal on a substantial legal question. If bail is granted, the constable can also seek a stay of the sentence, thereby preserving his rights while the appellate court deliberates on the evidentiary issues.

Question: How can the defence frame the constable’s lack of mens rea, given his claim that the cash was seized as part of a routine inventory and not as a bribe?

Answer: The factual scenario indicates that the constable possessed cash in his locker after the sting, but he maintains that the money was not received as a bribe. The legal problem is to demonstrate that the prosecution has not proved the requisite guilty mind to sustain a conviction for acceptance of a bribe. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise the defence to develop a narrative that the constable’s possession of cash was incidental, perhaps linked to an unrelated personal transaction or a legitimate police operation fund, and that there was no overt demand or agreement for illicit consideration. The defence can introduce evidence of the constable’s financial records, bank statements, and any prior legitimate cash handling duties to show that the cash could have a lawful explanation. Additionally, the defence should challenge the inference drawn by the trial court that the recovered cash automatically implies bribery, emphasizing that the prosecution must establish a causal link between the alleged demand and the receipt of money. The procedural consequence of successfully raising the mens rea issue is that the appellate court may find the conviction unsustainable, leading to its reversal. Practically, this strategy reduces the risk of the constable being held liable for an offence he did not intend to commit, and it may also open the possibility of negotiating a settlement with the investigating agency, such as a disciplinary proceeding rather than a criminal conviction. By focusing on the absence of a clear quid pro quo, the defence aligns its argument with the principle that criminal liability requires both actus reus and mens rea, thereby strengthening the appeal.

Question: What procedural defects in the trap operation and statement recording can be highlighted to argue for a revision of the conviction?

Answer: The trap was orchestrated by senior officers who disguised themselves as civilians and approached the trader, creating a scenario where the constable allegedly demanded money. The legal issue is whether the investigative process complied with the safeguards required for admissible evidence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would scrutinise the trap plan for any lack of prior judicial authorisation, the absence of a neutral observer, and the failure to record the interaction on audio or video, which are critical for establishing the authenticity of the transaction. Moreover, the defence should examine the statements of the “raiding party” for any signs of leading questions, absence of proper attestation, or failure to provide the accused an opportunity to cross‑examine. If the statements were recorded without the presence of a magistrate or without the constable’s legal counsel, this could constitute a violation of his right to a fair trial. The procedural consequence of exposing these defects is that the High Court may deem the evidence inadmissible or insufficient, thereby granting a revision and setting aside the conviction. Practically, highlighting these irregularities not only strengthens the appeal but also serves as a deterrent against future misuse of trap operations, ensuring that law enforcement adheres to procedural fairness. The defence can file a detailed revision petition enumerating each procedural lapse, supported by affidavits from independent experts on investigative standards, to persuade the court that the conviction rests on a flawed investigative foundation and must be overturned.