The Supreme Court of India held that witnesses turning hostile in departmental proceedings is no ground to seek discharge in a criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case concerned a Motor Vehicles Inspector accused of accepting a bribe, where a trap was laid and prosecution was sanctioned. Although the accused was exonerated in the departmental inquiry due to the complainant and key witnesses turning hostile, the trial court discharged him, citing invalid sanction. The High Court reversed this decision, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clarified that departmental proceedings and criminal trials operate independently. The standard of proof in departmental inquiries is based on the preponderance of probabilities, whereas criminal trials require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses who turn hostile in departmental proceedings may still testify truthfully in criminal trials due to the risk of perjury. Importantly, the Court reiterated that conviction in trap cases can rest solely on the credible testimony of the trap-laying officer. On the issue of sanction, the Court noted a factual dispute regarding the competent appointing authority. Since this issue was not conclusively established, the matter was remitted to the trial court to examine appointment records and determine the validity of sanction. The judgment reinforces that departmental exoneration does not shield an accused from criminal prosecution.