In a landmark judgment reinforcing its intolerance toward corruption in public administration, the Supreme Court restored the conviction of a Karnataka government employee accused of soliciting and accepting a bribe. While reinstating the trial court’s findings, the apex court underlined that corruption undermines the efficiency of public service and corrodes the very fabric of governance.
The case revolved around Chandrasha, a First Division Assistant in the Sub-Treasury Office, Afzalpur, who was found guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹2,000 from Subhashchandra S. Alur, a school employee. Chandrasha had initially been convicted by the trial court but was acquitted by the Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court’s decision reinstates the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing the need for accountability in public service.
Background of the Case
The case originated in 2009 when Subhashchandra S. Alur (P.W.1), a Second Division Assistant at Shri Mahanteshwar High School, filed a complaint against Chandrasha with the Lokayukta Police. Alur alleged that after submitting a bill for the encashment of surrender leave salary for himself and three colleagues, Chandrasha refused to process the bill unless he was paid a bribe of ₹2,000.
Upon receiving the complaint, the Lokayukta Police set a trap, recovering the tainted money from Chandrasha during a sting operation. The trial court convicted him in 2015 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines. However, in 2022, the Karnataka High Court overturned the conviction, citing insufficient evidence of demand and pending work.
Legal Issues
The court addressed several critical legal questions, including:
– Demand and Acceptance: The court reiterated that both are essential elements of corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
– Presumption Under Section 20: Once demand and acceptance are established, a presumption of guilt arises unless effectively rebutted by the accused.
– Standard of Proof: The prosecution’s case must stand beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence can complement direct evidence in proving culpability.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan took a firm stance against the High Court’s reasoning. The judgment quoted from a previous decision:
“Corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politic, social fabric of efficiency in the public service, and demoralizing the honest officers.”
The apex court highlighted that both “demand” and “acceptance” of illegal gratification had been proved beyond reasonable doubt through direct and corroborative evidence. Rejecting the High Court’s view, the Supreme Court underscored that:
1. The tainted money recovered from Chandrasha’s possession, coupled with the complainant’s testimony and other corroborative witnesses, left no room for doubt.
2. The respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The High Court’s reliance on the absence of pending work with the accused on the date of the trap was irrelevant, as the bribe was solicited to influence officials for processing the bill.
The court further noted that Chandrasha’s claim of the bribe being a repayment of a personal loan was unsupported by any evidence, rendering it implausible.
The Supreme Court’s decision restores the six-month and two-year concurrent sentences originally imposed by the trial court, along with fines. Chandrasha is now required to serve the remaining period of his sentence.
