Summary
The Court upheld corruption convictions of two village assistants who received, counted and retained money demanded by the village administrative officer. Their coordinated conduct and completion of the complainant’s paperwork only after payment established knowing participation. The explanation that the money represented land-tax arrears was contradicted by cancellation of that tax. Absence of a separate demand by the assistants and their acquittal on the section 7 charge did not defeat the convictions on these facts.
Issues
- Whether the assistants’ conduct proved knowing participation in collection of the bribe demanded by their superior.
- Whether absence of their own demand or the asserted land-tax explanation required acquittal.
Held
- Payment was received on the superior’s instructions, counted to verify the demanded amount and passed to the other assistant, who then completed the application before the officer signed and sealed it. Recovery and chemical-test evidence corroborated the transaction and supported knowing participation. (¶ 5–6)
- The asserted innocent receipt for land-tax arrears was belied by cancellation of the relevant tax. The argument comparing the bribe with the subsidy ignored that the subsidy recurred every six months. (¶ 6)
- On this record, absence of an express demand by the assistants did not exonerate them, and their section 7 acquittal did not negate the presumption applied by the Court. The innocent-intermediary decision relied on was distinguishable from this coordinated conduct. (¶ 7–9)
- The appeals failed and both appellants were directed to surrender to serve their remaining sentences. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences left undisturbed. Appellants directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.