Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Bribery Case: Kannan vs. State (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2018
Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1580 OF 2011
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a public servant be convicted for accepting a bribe even if the money is not directly received by them? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, upholding the conviction of two individuals for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved allegations of bribery against a public servant and his associate. The Court examined the evidence presented and affirmed the findings of the lower courts. This judgment reinforces the importance of integrity in public service and the consequences of corruption.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case revolves around a grocery shop named “Ambika Stores” owned by the father of Sabapathy (PW-2). On October 19, 1994, M. Nadimuthu (A-1), then an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, along with a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (PW-4), inspected the shop and seized its accounts book. PW-2 approached A-1 to get the accounts book back, at which point A-1 allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 2000. On October 22, 1994, PW-2 submitted an application for registration along with a challan for Rs. 100. On November 22, 1994, PW-2 again met A-1, who allegedly reiterated the demand for Rs. 2000. On November 30, 1994, A-1 allegedly stated that the bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 800, to be paid on November 1, 1994, or else the registration application would be rejected. PW-2 then filed a complaint with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing on November 1, 1994, leading to a trap being set.

On November 1, 1994, PW-2, accompanied by PW-3, went to A-1’s office. A-1 asked PW-2 if he had brought the money and then instructed PW-2 to pay the money to A-2, Kannan. PW-2 paid the bribe amount of Rs. 800 to A-2. Following this, the trap team, including PW-5, entered and conducted tests using sodium carbonate solution, which turned red. A-1 and A-2 were subsequently arrested.

Timeline

Date	Event
October 19, 1994	Inspection of “Ambika Stores” and seizure of accounts book by A-1 and PW-4.
October 22, 1994	PW-2 submits application for registration and a challan for Rs. 100.
November 22, 1994	PW-2 meets A-1, who allegedly reiterates demand for Rs. 2000.
November 30, 1994	A-1 allegedly reduces bribe demand to Rs. 800, to be paid on November 1, 1994.
November 1, 1994	PW-2 lodges complaint with Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing. Trap is set. PW-2 pays Rs. 800 to A-2. Arrest of A-1 and A-2.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted both A-1 and A-2 under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing them to two years of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

Section 7: This section deals with the offence of a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
Section 13(1)(d): This section defines criminal misconduct by a public servant, which includes obtaining for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant.
Section 13(2): This section prescribes the punishment for the offences under Section 13(1).

These provisions are designed to ensure integrity and accountability in public service by penalizing acts of corruption and abuse of power by public officials.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (A-1 and A-2):

The evidence of PW-2, the complainant, was uncorroborated.
A-1 did not receive the bribe money directly.
There was no evidence to show that A-2 demanded any bribe, and therefore, his conviction is not sustainable.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State):

PW-2’s testimony regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe was clear and consistent.
PW-3, though turned hostile, corroborated the fact that PW-2 paid the money to A-2 on the direction of A-1.
PW-6, the office assistant, corroborated PW-2’s version, stating that A-1 directed A-2 to receive the money from PW-2.
The sodium carbonate test confirmed the handling of the bribe money by the accused.

The respondent argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Main Submissions	Sub-Submissions	Party
Lack of Corroboration	Evidence of PW-2 is uncorroborated	Appellants (A-1 and A-2)
No Direct Receipt of Bribe Money	A-1 did not receive the money directly	Appellant (A-1)
No Direct Receipt of Bribe Money	No evidence of demand by A-2	Appellant (A-2)
Sufficient Corroboration	PW-2’s testimony is clear about demand and acceptance	Respondent (State)
	PW-3 corroborated PW-2’s payment to A-2 on A-1’s direction	Respondent (State)
	PW-6 corroborated PW-2’s version of A-1 directing A-2 to receive the money	Respondent (State)
	Sodium carbonate test confirmed handling of bribe money	Respondent (State)

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

Whether the evidence of PW-2 was sufficiently corroborated to sustain the conviction of A-1 and A-2.
Whether the fact that A-1 did not directly receive the bribe money is relevant to his conviction.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that A-2 had demanded or accepted a bribe.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Decision
Whether the evidence of PW-2 was sufficiently corroborated to sustain the conviction of A-1 and A-2.	The Court held that PW-2’s evidence was sufficiently corroborated by the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6.
Whether the fact that A-1 did not directly receive the bribe money is relevant to his conviction.	The Court found that it was not necessary for A-1 to directly receive the money, as he had directed PW-2 to pay A-2.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that A-2 had demanded or accepted a bribe.	The Court held that the evidence showed that A-2 accepted the bribe on the direction of A-1, making him equally liable.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Relating to public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Relating to criminal misconduct by a public servant.
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Relating to the punishment for offences under Section 13(1).

No cases were cited in the judgment.

Authority	Nature	How the Court Considered
Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988	Legal Provision	Applied to the facts of the case to determine if A-1 and A-2 had committed the offense of taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988	Legal Provision	Applied to the facts of the case to determine if A-1 and A-2 had committed criminal misconduct by obtaining a pecuniary advantage by corrupt means.
Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988	Legal Provision	Applied to determine the punishment for the offences committed under Section 13(1)(d).

Judgment

Submission	Court’s Treatment
Evidence of PW-2 is uncorroborated.	Rejected. The Court found that the evidence of PW-2 was corroborated by the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6.
A-1 did not receive the money directly.	Rejected. The Court held that it was sufficient that A-1 directed PW-2 to pay the money to A-2.
There was no evidence to show that A-2 demanded any bribe.	Rejected. The Court found that A-2 received the bribe on the direction of A-1, making him liable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. The testimony of PW-2, the complainant, was deemed credible and was supported by the statements of PW-3 and PW-6. The fact that A-1 directed PW-2 to pay the bribe to A-2 was also a significant factor. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining integrity in public service and the need to deter corrupt practices.

Sentiment	Percentage
Corroboration of Evidence	40%
Direction to Pay Bribe	30%
Credibility of Witness Testimony	20%
Deterrence of Corruption	10%

Category	Percentage
Fact	60%
Law	40%

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal interpretation. The factual aspects, such as the testimonies of the witnesses and the events of the trap, weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision. The legal aspects, particularly the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, were applied to the established facts to determine the guilt of the accused.

Issue: Whether evidence of PW-2 was sufficiently corroborated?

↓

Court’s Reasoning: PW-2’s testimony corroborated by PW-3 and PW-6.

↓

Conclusion: Evidence sufficiently corroborated.

Issue: Whether A-1’s non-direct receipt of the bribe is relevant?

↓

Court’s Reasoning: A-1 directed PW-2 to pay A-2, making him liable.

↓

Conclusion: Direct receipt not necessary for conviction.

Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove A-2’s guilt?

↓

Court’s Reasoning: A-2 received the bribe on A-1’s direction.

↓

Conclusion: A-2 is also liable for the offense.

The court stated, “So far as the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by A-1 and A-2 are concerned, PW-2 has clearly stated about the demand and acceptance.” The court further noted, “In his evidence PW-6 has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and that A-1 told A-2 that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must take and keep it with him. Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 who received the same.” Finally, the court concluded, “Having regard to the concurrent findings of the courts below, we do not find any good ground to take a different view.”

Key Takeaways

Corroborative evidence is crucial in corruption cases.
A public servant can be held liable for bribery even if they do not directly receive the bribe money.
Accepting a bribe on the direction of another public servant makes one equally liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to surrender to custody within eight weeks to serve the remaining sentence. Failure to do so would result in their being taken into custody. A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary action.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a public servant can be convicted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, even if they do not directly receive the bribe money, provided there is sufficient evidence to show that they were involved in the demand or acceptance of the bribe. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principle but reinforces the existing legal position regarding corruption in public service.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of the appellants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found sufficient corroborative evidence to support the charges of bribery against both accused. The judgment reinforces the importance of integrity in public service and the consequences of corrupt practices, emphasizing that a public servant can be held liable for bribery even if they do not directly receive the bribe money.

FAQ

Q: What is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
A: The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is an Indian law that aims to combat corruption among public servants. It penalizes acts of bribery, criminal misconduct, and abuse of power by public officials.

Q: Can a public servant be convicted of bribery if they do not directly receive the bribe money?
A: Yes, according to this judgment, a public servant can be convicted of bribery even if they do not directly receive the bribe money. It is sufficient if they direct the payment of the bribe to another person.

Q: What is the significance of corroborative evidence in corruption cases?
A: Corroborative evidence is crucial in corruption cases as it supports the testimony of the complainant and strengthens the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence in this judgment.

Q: What should a person do if a public servant demands a bribe?
A: If a public servant demands a bribe, the person should lodge a complaint with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing or other relevant authorities. It is important to report such instances to maintain integrity in public service.

Source: Kannan vs. State