Demand And Acceptance Is A Sine Qua Non | Supreme Court Acquits One Accused In ₹500 Bribe Trap For Lack Of Connivance Evidence, Cuts VAO’s Sentence To Statutory Minimum
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has delivered a judgment modifying the sentence of one accused and acquitting another in a criminal appeal arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court upheld the conviction of the first accused but reduced his sentence to the statutory minimum of one year, while setting aside the conviction of the second accused.
The Bench directed that the first accused's sentence for offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and Section 7 of the Act be reduced from three years and two years respectively to one year each, to run concurrently. The Court found that there was no allegation or evidence of demand of illegal gratification by the second accused and, in the absence of a charge of abetment or proof of connivance, his conviction could not be sustained. The appeals were accordingly allowed in part, with the conviction of the second accused quashed entirely and the sentence of the first accused modified.
The matter concerned a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, initiated following allegations of illegal gratification demanded in connection with the issuance of a Community Certificate for Government service purposes. At the relevant time, the first accused (A-1) was serving as Village Administrative Officer at Selvalur, while the second accused (A-2) was working as a Village Assistant in the same office. The complainant, V. Rengasamy (PW-2), applied to the Tehsildar for a Community Certificate. His application was returned with an endorsement to approach A-1 for a report.
It was alleged that when the complainant approached A-1 on 09.11.2004, A-1 demanded Rs. 500 as a bribe for processing the papers. The complainant again approached A-1 on 27.11.2004, and the demand was reiterated. Following this, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, regarding the demand of Rs. 500. A trap was arranged for 03.12.2004, with currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder given to the complainant.
On the day of the trap, the complainant met A-1, who reiterated his demand and instructed A-2 to collect the money. The complainant handed the marked currency notes to A-2, who counted and kept them as directed by A-1. Upon receiving the signal from the complainant, the police entered, seized the currency notes, and conducted a phenolphthalein test on A-2’s hands, which turned pink, indicating contact with the treated currency notes. The currency notes were sent for chemical analysis, confirming the presence of phenolphthalein.
An FIR was registered as Crime No. 8 of 2004 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following investigation, a chargesheet was submitted on 29.06.2006 under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, citing 11 witnesses. The Special Court under the Act in Special Case No. 2 of 2011, by judgment dated 23.11.2011, convicted both accused. A-1 was sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, and two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 7, with default sentences in case of non-payment of fine. A-2 was sentenced to 1.5 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)-, and one-year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 7, with default sentences.
The convictions were upheld by the High Court in a common judgment dated 05.12.2018 dismissing both appeals. The accused then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.
Before the Supreme Court, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued for reduction of sentence for A-1 in view of his age (68 years), the small amount of the bribe, and the time elapsed since the offence (2004). For A-2, it was argued that there was no evidence of demand of illegal gratification by him, nor was he present when A-1 originally demanded the bribe. It was submitted that in the absence of demand and receipt by A-2, his conviction was illegal. It was further argued that A-2 could not be convicted merely for accepting money without a specific charge of abetment or allegation that A-1 was the abettor.
On behalf of the State, it was contended that the case against A-1 was proved by the oral evidence of PW-1 (Revenue Divisional Officer) and PW-2 (complainant), and that the punishment should be deterrent to maintain public trust and prevent corruption. As regards A-2, it was submitted that he knowingly accepted the illegal gratification on behalf of A-1 and that absence of a formal charge of abetment would not vitiate his conviction.
The Supreme Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Datta vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, noting that for conviction under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by direct or circumstantial evidence. The Bench stated: "In other words, to convict a person under the aforesaid provision demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non."
In relation to A-2, the Court observed: "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 Court found that the demand made by A-1 could not be attributed to A-2 as there was no evidence that A-2 was a habitual offender working in aid with A-1 or facilitating A-1 in demanding and receiving illegal gratification.
The Bench recorded: "Accordingly, in the absence of any allegation or evidence that A-2 demanded bribe from the complainant or he was acting in connivance with A-1, he cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the crime of demanding and receiving illegal gratification." It was noted that A-2 was not charged with abetment and could have received the money innocently or knowingly, with both views possible. However, without evidence of connivance, the conviction could not be sustained.
Referring to Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad vs. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 357, the Court reiterated that accepting money on behalf of another may constitute abetment, but without a charge of abetment, the person accepting the bribe is not liable to be convicted.
On the case of A-1, the Court 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 Court held that both ingredients of demand and receipt were proved against A-1 through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, despite minor contradictions.
Regarding sentencing, the Court recorded: "The long time that has elapsed during the trial and the appeals coupled with the fact that the amount involved is small, it appears just and proper to award the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act." It clarified that reduction of sentence was within the statutory scope and not an act of leniency overriding the law.
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of A-1 but modified the sentence from three and two years respectively to the minimum of one year for both offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and Section 7 of the Act, as prescribed. It directed that both sentences run concurrently. The appeal of A-1 was allowed in part to this extent.
As for A-2, the Court set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court and High Court convicting him. The Court ordered: "The judgment and order of the Trial Court and the High Court insofar they convict A-2 are set aside. His appeal stands allowed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR
For Respondent(s): Dr. Joseph Aristotle S, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Case Title: A. Karunanithi & P. Karunanithi v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 967
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9964 & 7442 of 2019)
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
