Summary
In a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court set aside the conviction of the Village Assistant (A-2) who had merely received the bribe on the directions of the Village Administrative Officer (A-1), because no demand by him and no charge of abetment or proof of connivance was established, while confirming A-1's conviction and reducing his sentence to the statutory minimum of one year in view of the lapse of time since 2004 and the petty amount of Rs. 500.
Issues
- Whether A-2, who accepted the tainted money on the direction of A-1 without himself demanding any gratification and without a charge of abetment, could be convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Whether the conviction of A-1 for demand and acceptance of a bribe through A-2 was sustainable.
- Whether A-1's sentence should be reduced to the statutory minimum of one year having regard to his age, the lapse of time since the 2004 offence and the small amount involved.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Following the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta, the Court treated proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a sine qua non for conviction under these provisions. A-2 never demanded anything and A-1's demand could not be attributed to him absent evidence of connivance, so his conviction failed; A-1's demand (made twice and again at the trap) and receipt through A-2 were proved, so his conviction stood. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court rejected the objection that it could not show compassion under Article 142 to reduce the sentence, observing that it was not overriding the statute: the reduction to one year lay within the minimum sentence the Act itself prescribes. (¶ 21)
Held
- Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are both essential for a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and may be proved by direct oral or documentary evidence or by circumstantial evidence. (¶ 14)
- A person who merely accepts money on the directions of the public servant who made the demand cannot be convicted of demanding and receiving illegal gratification where there is no allegation or evidence that he himself demanded the bribe or acted in connivance with the demanding officer; the demand made by one accused cannot be attributed to another without such evidence. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Accepting a bribe on behalf of another may amount to abetment, but in the absence of a charge of abetment the receiver cannot be convicted of the substantive offence under Sections 7 and 13; a fair trial does not cure the absence of the charge where connivance is not proved and the receipt could have been innocent. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Where the evidence of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the complainant, despite minor contradictions, establishes that the public servant demanded the bribe twice and again when the trap was laid, and that the money was received by his subordinate on his dictates, both demand and receipt are proved against him and the conviction is not to be disturbed. (¶ 18)
- Having regard to the long pendency of the trial and appeals since the 2004 offence and the small sum of Rs. 500 involved, it was just to award the minimum sentence prescribed by the Act; such a reduction is within the statute and does not involve overriding it under Article 142. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
Result
Appeals disposed of. A-1's conviction confirmed but sentence reduced to one year for each offence; his appeal allowed in part. Conviction of A-2 set aside; his appeal allowed.