The Supreme Court, in a case involving a government servant convicted for accepting a bribe of ₹2000, clarified that the quantum of the bribe need not be significant to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Section 20(3) of the Act permits courts to exercise discretion in refraining from drawing an adverse presumption against a public servant if the amount involved is deemed trivial. The Supreme Court highlighted that the value of the illegal gratification must be evaluated concerning the service it was intended to influence. Additionally, the Court ruled that the presumption under this section becomes redundant when the agreement to accept the bribe is established as a fact.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan addressed an appeal challenging a High Court decision that had acquitted the accused in a case involving a bribe demand of ₹2000 for processing a surrender leave salary cheque for a school teacher. The accused was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 20 of the Act establishes that if it is proven a public servant has received undue advantage, it shall be presumed that the receipt was with corrupt intent unless proven otherwise under Section 7.

 The Supreme Court observed that the presumption under Section 20 is unnecessary if the nexus between the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is clearly established. "Section 20 would apply only in the absence of a connection between the demand and the action performed or proposed to be performed. However, when the receipt or agreement to receive gratification is proven, the presumption becomes irrelevant," the judgment authored by Justice R. Mahadevan stated.

The trial court had initially convicted the accused based on evidence from a trap arranged by the Lokayukta Police following a complaint from the victim. However, the High Court, in its February 16, 2022, judgment, overturned this conviction, reasoning that no work was pending with the accused at the time of the alleged bribe demand. It noted that the bill for encashing the complainant's leave salary had already been processed by July 29, 2009, and the cheque was ready by July 30, 2009.

 The High Court relied on the precedent set in A. Subair v. State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587, which established that two essential elements must be proven under Section 7: (1) the accused must be a public servant, and (2) the gratification must be accepted as a motive or reward for performing or refraining from performing an official act.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the complainant’s cheque had neither been issued nor communicated to the relevant school authorities as of August 5, 2009. It held that "no cheque was issued, and it remained pending as on the date of the trap." The Court confirmed that the essential components of "demand" and "acceptance" of the bribe had been proven, justifying the invocation of the presumption under Section 20. Furthermore, the bench rejected the application of A. Subair to the present case, citing factual differences. It also clarified that the erstwhile Section 20(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act allowed courts to disregard presumptions in cases where the bribe amount was insignificant, provided no reasonable inference of corruption could be drawn.

The judgment elaborated that the value of the bribe must be assessed in proportion to the act or service sought. "The triviality of gratification, the act sought or performed, and the amount demanded cannot be evaluated in isolation but must be weighed together to determine whether the presumption of corruption is justified."

 The Court further noted that the presumption under Section 20 is not contingent on the magnitude of the amount involved. Instead, the evidence and circumstances must be holistically considered. "It is not necessary that a presumption is drawn only in cases involving a substantial sum. The surrounding circumstances and evidence must also be considered."

Drawing a parallel with Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court emphasized that the burden under Section 20 lies with the accused to disprove the charges.

 The Court clarified that Section 13, addressing criminal misconduct by public servants, focuses on the intent of illicit enrichment rather than the amount of gratification. It explained that Section 20(3) provides an exception, not a rule, for courts to exercise discretion in cases involving trivial amounts. In this case, the Court found no reason to exercise such discretion. Concluding, the Supreme Court declared the High Court’s acquittal erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record, reinstating the trial court’s conviction of the accused.

Case Details : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. CHANDRASHA

Case No: Crl Appeal NO.2646 OF 2024

Date: November-26-2024

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice R. Mahadevan