Merely Accepting An Amount With No Proof Of Bribe Will Not Be Punishable Under Section 7: K Shanthamma Vs State Of Telengana

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
21/02/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI AND JUSTICE MR. AJAY S. OKA

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: K. SHANTHAMMA
RESPONDENT: STATE OF TELENGANA

SUBJECT

The Supreme court ruled that the proof of a government servant's solicitation for a bribe and his receipt of the bribe was sine quo non for demonstrating the violation under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

OVERVIEW

1. The accused in this case was a person who was employed as a Commercial Tax Officer and was found guilty under the PC Act's Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2).
2. On the 24th of February 2000, she sought a bribery of Rs.3,000/- in exchange for releasing an assessment order, according to the prosecutor.
3. The Special Court found the accused to be guilty and the order of the Special Court was upheld by the High Court. The decision of the High Court was appealed before the Supreme Court.
4. The Supreme Court stated in its decision that there is just one eyewitness to the purported request and assent.
5. The court stated that Prosecution Witness 1 did not mention that the petitioner repeated her request, and that Prosecution Witness 1's description of the request made from time to time in his investigation is an enhancement.
6. As a result, the court concluded that the accused's allegation had not been proved conclusively.

LEGAL PROVISION

Sections 7, 13 (1)(d), 13(2) OF THE PC ACT

ISSUE

1. Whether a mere acceptance of any amount will be considered a bribe demand if there’s no proof of the same?
2. Whether this will be established as an offence under section 7?

JUDGEMENT

1. The Court stated that PW1 did not mention that the petitioner repeated her request, and that PW1's description of the request made from time to time in his investigation is an enhancement.
2. The Court then stated that the crime of public workers accepting bribes under Section 7 of the PC Act required a request for illicit payment and receipt of it. The requirement for proving the infraction under Section 7 of the PC Act was evidence of a government servant's request for a bribe and his admission of it.
3. The Court took the example of P Satyanarayana Murthy v District inspector of Police, Andhra Pradesh & Ors and in that case it was ruled that the gravamen of the crime under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act was therefore the evidence of request of illicit payment, and without it, the allegation would have failed miserably.
4. Accepting any sum purportedly as illicit payment or recovering it without evidence of request, ipso facto, was not considered to be strong enough to bring home the allegation under certain 2 segments of the Act.
5. As a result, the prosecution's inability to establish the request for illicit payment turned out to be deadly, and once the money is recovered from the alleged of the act under Section 7 or 13 of the Act was not sufficient for his imprisonment.
6. The Court allowed and discharged the defendant, ruling that the request, which is essential for building the charges under Section 7, had not been proved.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court finally ruled that the evidence of a government servant's solicitation for a bribe and his receipt of the bribe was sine quo non demonstrating the violation under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution's inability to establish the request for illicit payment proved to be catastrophic, and just recovering the money from the individual charged with a crime under Section 7 or 13 of the Act just wouldn't result in his punishment and then concluded the judgement,

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement