“Acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, when it is offered, squarely falls within the mischief of the Prevention of Corruption Act,” the January 7 order said.
Background
In 2015, a court in Thrissur, convicted the official under Sections 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed) and 13 (Criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of up to two years along with fines.
Challenging this verdict, he approached the high court.
Arguments
Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution had failed to prove a clear demand for bribe, which is an essential ingredient of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It was contended that the complainant’s testimony was unreliable and suffered from inconsistencies, particularly regarding the alleged misuse of electricity and the presence of an electric motor at the site.
The defence further claimed that the money was allegedly thrust upon the official without any demand from his side and that mere recovery of cash could not automatically lead to a conviction.
Story continues below this ad
It was also argued that certain documents relied upon by the prosecution were manipulated and therefore cast serious doubt on the case.
Opposing the appeal, Rajesh A, special public prosecutor, and Rekha S, senior public prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau argued that the prosecution had successfully proved both acceptance of illegal gratification and the surrounding circumstances.
The prosecution relied on the complainant’s testimony, corroborated by trap witnesses and scientific evidence, including the positive phenolphthalein test conducted on the accused.
It was submitted that even if the offer of money originated from the complainant, the accused’s act of accepting it was sufficient to attract Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Story continues below this ad
Observations
The court ruled that even if a government employee accepts money when it is offered, such conduct would amount to accepting a bribe, and on this reasoning, refused to cancel bribery charges against the accused.
It said that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a “sine qua non (an essential condition)” for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and after examining the evidence and the legal position, upheld the conviction.
Relying on the Supreme Court precedent, the court observed that “mere recovery of money is not sufficient unless demand is proved,” but added that demand can be established through reliable oral, documentary, or circumstantial evidence.
Modifying the sentence, the court reduced the jail term to six months under Section 7 and one year under Section 13, with both sentences to run concurrently.
Story continues below this ad
The accused was directed to surrender before the trial court to undergo the modified sentence.
However, it made it clear that courts would not show leniency to public servants who accept illegal gratification, irrespective of whether the bribe was demanded or merely accepted when offered.
It further held that the recovery of tainted money from the accused and the positive chemical test were strong circumstances pointing to guilt.
Minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, the court said, could not overshadow the core evidence regarding acceptance of the bribe.
