The Supreme Court reinstated the conviction of the respondent, Chandrasha, a public servant, for offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court's findings of demand and acceptance of a bribe of ₹2,000 were upheld, while the High Court's acquittal was deemed erroneous. The Court emphasized the role of corroborative evidence, proper sanction, and procedural fairness in corruption cases.

1. Procedural History:

• Trial Court Verdict (2015): Respondent convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe. Sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
• High Court Judgment (2022): Acquitted respondent on the ground that no official work was pending at the time of the trap.
• Supreme Court Appeal (2024): State challenged the acquittal.

2. Prosecution’s Case (Paras 4-8):

• Complainant (P.W.1) submitted a leave salary bill to the Sub Treasury Office, where the respondent demanded ₹2,000 for processing it.
• Lokayukta police laid a trap, recorded the demand, and recovered tainted money from the respondent.
• Witnesses corroborated the demand and recovery.

3. Respondent’s Defense (Paras 9.9, 22):

• Claimed the amount recovered was repayment of a private loan, not a bribe.
• Argued no official work was pending with him on the date of the alleged trap.

4. Supreme Court’s Analysis (Paras 10-24):

• Demand and Acceptance (Paras 12-21):
  Evidence, including tape-recorded conversations and corroborative testimony of witnesses, confirmed both demand and acceptance of the bribe.

• Sanction Validity (Para 16):
  Prosecution obtained a valid sanction from the competent authority, satisfying procedural requirements.

• Rebuttal Failure (Para 22):
  Respondent failed to substantiate claims of a loan or rebut the presumption of corruption under Section 20 of the Act.

• High Court’s Flaws (Para 23):
  High Court incorrectly concluded no pending work absolved guilt. The Supreme Court clarified that the act of demanding and accepting a bribe itself constitutes the offense.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
  • Section 7: Public servant accepting illegal gratification.
  • Section 13(1)(d): Criminal misconduct by public servants.
  • Section 13(2): Punishment for such misconduct.
• Section 20: Presumption of culpability in corruption cases.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court reiterated that in corruption cases, the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe, which were sufficiently established here through direct and circumstantial evidence. The presumption under Section 20 shifts the burden to the accused to disprove the allegations.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Prevention of Corruption
Corruption, Bribery, Public Servant, Demand and Acceptance, Evidence, Presumption, Sanction for Prosecution