Supreme Court overturns acquittal in bribery case: State of Karnataka vs. Chandrasha (2024) INSC 928 (26 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 928
Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, Sanjay Kumar, J., R. Mahadevan, J.
Can a public servant be convicted for accepting a bribe even if the work for which the bribe was demanded was already completed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a government employee accused of demanding and accepting a bribe. The Court overturned the High Court’s acquittal, reinstating the trial court’s conviction, emphasizing that the demand and acceptance of a bribe are sufficient for conviction, regardless of whether the work was pending. This judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan, with Justice R. Mahadevan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Subhashchandra S. Alur (P.W.1), a Second Division Assistant at Shri Mahanteshwar High School. On July 29, 2009, Alur submitted a bill to the Sub Treasury Office, Afzalpur, for encashment of surrender leave salary for himself and three other non-teaching staff. The respondent, Chandrasha, a First Division Assistant at the Sub Treasury Office, initially refused to pass the bill. Alur alleged that Chandrasha demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000 to process the bill. Unwilling to pay, Alur approached the Lokayukta Police on July 30, 2009. He was given a tape recorder to record his conversation with Chandrasha. On July 31, 2009, Alur again met Chandrasha, who reiterated his demand for a bribe. This conversation was recorded. On August 5, 2009, a trap was laid, and Chandrasha was caught accepting the bribe of Rs. 2,000.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Chandrasha under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, however, set aside the trial court’s order and acquitted Chandrasha. The State of Karnataka then appealed to the Supreme Court against this acquittal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the following provisions:

• Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section deals with a public servant accepting or attempting to accept illegal gratification other than their legal remuneration. The essential ingredients are that the person accepting the gratification should be a public servant and that they should accept the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act.
• Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section, as it stood before the 2018 amendment, deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant. The essential ingredients are that the person should be a public servant, should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused their position, and should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for themselves or any other person.
• Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section provides the punishment for the offence under Section 13(1).
• Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section states that if it is proved that a public servant has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration, it shall be presumed that the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for any of the acts covered under Section 7, 11 or 13(1)(b) of the Act.

The Supreme Court also referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which states that unless a different intention appears, the repeal of an enactment does not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under the repealed enactment.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Karnataka)’s Arguments:

• The respondent initially refused to pass the bill and asked the complainant to take it back. However, upon the complainant’s request, the respondent agreed to get the bill passed by influencing his higher officials and demanded illegal gratification for the same.
• Even if the respondent had no pending work, the demand and acceptance of gratification attract the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The prosecution obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority before initiating the proceedings against the respondent.
• The prosecution witnesses consistently deposed about the demand and acceptance of the bribe and its recovery from the respondent. Therefore, the presumption under Section 20(1) of the Act must be raised in favor of the prosecution.
• Relying on Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 (2) Crimes 337 (Supreme Court of India), the appellant argued that once money is recovered from the possession of the respondent, the burden of rebutting the presumption shifts to the respondent.
• The respondent’s plea of a prior loan transaction with the complainant was not supported by any reliable evidence.
• The trial court rightly convicted the respondent, and the High Court erred in acquitting him.

Respondent (Chandrasha)’s Arguments:

• The respondent claimed that he had already passed the bill on July 29, 2009, and the cheque was prepared on July 30, 2009. Therefore, no work was pending with him on August 5, 2009, and he did not demand any bribe.
• The High Court rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction passed by the trial court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the following key question:

• Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the respondent despite the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe and recovery of the same from the possession of the respondent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 14 (Supreme Court of India): The Court quoted this case to emphasize the corrosive nature of corruption.
• A.Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 (Supreme Court of India): The High Court relied on this case to acquit the respondent, but the Supreme Court distinguished it, noting that in A.Subair, the complainant was not examined and there were discrepancies in the evidence of other witnesses, which was not the case here.
• C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterated that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe.
• B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 (Supreme Court of India): This case also reiterated that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe.
• Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 (Supreme Court of India): This Constitution Bench judgment clarified that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.
• Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 (2) Crimes 337 (Supreme Court of India): The Court relied on this case to state that once money is recovered from the possession of the respondent, the burden of rebutting the presumption shifts to the respondent.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The Court discussed the ingredients of this section related to acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant.
• Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The Court discussed the ingredients of this section related to criminal misconduct by a public servant.
• Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The Court discussed the punishment for the offence under Section 13(1).
• Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The Court discussed the presumption that arises when a public servant accepts illegal gratification.
• Section 6 of the General Clauses Act: The Court referred to this section to state that the amendment to Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would not apply to the present case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the trial court’s conviction. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was applicable, and the respondent failed to rebut it.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 14 (Supreme Court of India): The Court used this case to highlight the severity of corruption.
• A.Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587 (Supreme Court of India): The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts were different, and the High Court erred in relying on it.
• C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 (Supreme Court of India): The Court used this case to highlight the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe.
• B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 (Supreme Court of India): The Court used this case to highlight the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe.
• Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 (Supreme Court of India): The Court used this case to highlight that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.
• Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 (2) Crimes 337 (Supreme Court of India): The Court used this case to state that once money is recovered from the possession of the respondent, the burden of rebutting the presumption shifts to the respondent.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant (P.W.1) and the panch witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3), regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe.
• The recovery of the tainted currency notes from the respondent’s possession.
• The respondent’s failure to provide a plausible explanation for the receipt of the money or to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The fact that the cheque was not issued to the complainant, indicating that the work was not completed.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the factual evidence presented by the prosecution, with legal principles applied to interpret those facts.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the work was already done, but rejected it, stating that the work is only considered complete when the cheque is issued. The Court also rejected the respondent’s claim that the money was a loan repayment, as there was no evidence to support it. The Court stated that the High Court’s view was unsustainable and that the trial court’s conviction was correct.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “In the instant case, the respondent was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act, for demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.2,000/ – from the complainant (P.W.1) for passing the bill of encashment of Earned Leave Surrender f or Rs.43,323/ – pertaining to the complainant and three non-teaching staff of his school.”
• “It is settled law that the two basic facts viz., ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification have been proved, the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act.”

There were no dissenting or concurring opinions in this case. The judgment was authored by Justice R. Mahadevan.

Key Takeaways

• A public servant can be convicted for accepting a bribe even if the work for which the bribe was demanded was already completed, as long as the demand and acceptance of the bribe are proven.
• The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is applicable once the demand and acceptance of a bribe are proven, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption.
• The courts will look at the evidence presented and consider the circumstances of the case when determining whether a public servant is guilty of corruption.
• The non-issuance of the cheque indicates that the work was not complete, even if the bill was processed.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to take necessary steps to secure the respondent and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence and to recover the fine imposed on him.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the demand and acceptance of a bribe by a public servant are sufficient to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, regardless of whether the work was pending or not. This judgment clarifies that the completion of work is not a defense against corruption charges if the demand and acceptance of a bribe are proven. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the court has re-emphasized the importance of the demand and acceptance of bribe and the applicability of the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka vs. Chandrasha reinforces the principle that public servants must maintain integrity and not engage in corrupt practices. The judgment highlights that the demand and acceptance of a bribe are sufficient for conviction, regardless of whether the work was pending. This ruling serves as a reminder that corruption will not be tolerated and that those who engage in such activities will be held accountable.