In a judgment delivered on 14 September 2015, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Amitava Roy, has held that mere recovery of bribe money is not sufficient to convict a public servant for the offence of corruption, and that it is also necessary that there should be proof of demand of bribe. This judgment was delivered in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy, who was working as Assistant Director, Commissionerate of Technical Education, Hyderabad, and was alleged to have accepted a bribe of Rs. 500 in the year 1996 for effecting renewal of the recognition of the complainant’s typing institute.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year on each count and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for three months for each offence. The sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
The High Court in the appeal, while upholding his conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, did set at naught his conviction under Section 7 of the Act. The sentence qua his conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was sustained.
However, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the reason that demand of bribe could not be proved against him.
The Supreme Court held as under:
“The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act.
“As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.”
The Supreme Court further reiterated the legal principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
In view of these reasons, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in this case. The full judgment can be seen online here.
