The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a person who accepts bribe money on the direction of another cannot be convicted under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of a specific charge of abetment and evidence of connivance. While setting aside the conviction of a Village Assistant (A-2), a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the conviction of the Village Administrative Officer (A-1) who made the initial demand, but reduced his sentence to the statutory minimum of one year, considering the long pendency of the case and the petty amount involved.
The Court was hearing appeals against a Madras High Court judgment which had upheld the conviction of both officials by a Special Court.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by V. Rengasamy (PW-2), who had applied for a Community Certificate. His application was sent to the Village Administrative Officer, A. Karunanithi (A-1), for a report. According to the prosecution, when the complainant approached A-1 on November 9, 2004, a bribe of Rs. 500 was demanded. The demand was allegedly reiterated on November 27, 2004.
Following this, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. A trap was organized on December 3, 2004. When the complainant approached A-1, the demand for Rs. 500 was made again, and A-1 instructed the Village Assistant, P. Karunanithi (A-2), to collect the money. The complainant handed over currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder to A-2.
Upon receiving a signal from the complainant, the police team entered, seized the notes, and conducted the phenolphthalein test on A-2’s hands, which turned pink. An FIR was registered, and upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against both accused under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Special Court convicted both A-1 and A-2. A-1 was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) under Section 13 and two years RI under Section 7. A-2 was sentenced to 1.5 years RI and one year RI for the respective offences. The High Court dismissed their appeals, confirming the conviction and sentence, which led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Counsel Shri S. Nagamuthu, appearing for the appellants, argued for the reduction of sentence for A-1, highlighting his age of 68 years, the petty bribe amount of Rs. 500, and the fact that the incident occurred in 2004.
For A-2, it was argued that his conviction was illegal as there was no evidence that he had demanded any illegal gratification or was present during the original demand by A-1. The counsel stressed that in the absence of demand and receipt, a conviction cannot stand. A further argument was made that A-2 could not be convicted without a specific charge of abetment.
Counsel for the State defended the conviction, submitting that the case against A-1 was proven by the evidence of the complainant (PW-2) and the Revenue Divisional Officer (PW-1). It was argued that punishment under the Act must be a deterrent and no leniency should be shown. For A-2, the State contended that he had knowingly accepted the illegal gratification on behalf of A-1 and that the absence of a formal abetment charge would not vitiate his conviction as he had received a fair trial.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court first examined the case of A-2, the Village Assistant. The bench observed that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are a sine qua non for a conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, referencing the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Datta vs State (NCT of Delhi).
The Court noted, “It is no one’s case that A-2 ever demanded any illegal gratification. He undoubtedly accepted the money on the directions of A-1 and kept the same with him. So, there was no demand of illegal gratification on his part.” The judgment stated that the demand made by A-1 could not be attributed to A-2 as there was no evidence to establish he was a habitual offender or was facilitating A-1’s corrupt activities.
Crucially, the Court pointed out that A-2 was not charged with abetment. The bench observed that two possibilities existed: “He could have received the money innocently on the direction of A-1 or he may have received it knowingly. Both the views are possible.” However, in the absence of evidence of connivance, the Court concluded that it could not be said with certainty that he was an accomplice.
In this context, the Court cited its previous decision in Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., where it was held that “accepting money on behalf of another person may certainly constitute an abetment of an offence, but in the absence of a charge of abetment, the person accepting the bribe is not liable to be convicted.” Based on this reasoning, the Court held that the Trial Court and High Court had “manifestly erred” in convicting A-2.
Regarding A-1, the Village Administrative Officer, the Court found the evidence on record sufficient to prove his guilt. The bench stated, “The evidence on record amply proves that he demanded bribe from the complainant not only once but twice, and thereafter when the trap was laid. The bribe on his behalf was accepted by A-2.” The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, despite minor contradictions, was found to be unshaken.
On the question of A-1’s sentence, the Court agreed to reduce it. It took into consideration that the offence was committed in 2004, the amount involved was small (Rs. 500), and A-1 had endured the pendency of the trial and appeals for many years. The Court found it “just and proper to award the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act.” It clarified that this was not an act of compassion overriding the statute, stating, “The reduction of sentence is within the scope of the statute which provides for a minimum sentence of one year.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of P. Karunanithi (A-2) and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court convicting him.
The appeal of A. Karunanithi (A-1) was allowed in part. While his conviction was confirmed, his sentence was reduced from three and two years RI to the minimum of one year RI for both offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
