Conviction for Acceptance of Bribe Is Upheld and High Court Acquittal Is Set Aside

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale heard the State of Karnataka’s appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment which had acquitted a Village Accountant previously convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe. The appeal challenged the High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s acquittal and restored the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence. The bench held that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court erred in giving undue weight to minor discrepancies in witness testimony while ignoring reliable ocular and documentary evidence. The Court recorded that the Trial Court had evaluated the evidence correctly and that “the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and the charges against the accused namely under Section 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act are proved so as to hold the accused guilty of these offences.” The bench further recorded that “the High Court committed the serious error in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court.” The accused was directed to surrender to the trial court within two weeks.

Background The prosecution case arose from a 1995 complaint by a landholder who sought mutation entries in revenue records and alleged that the Village Accountant demanded a bribe to process the application. The complainant filed a fresh application on April 3, 1995, and alleged that the accused demanded Rs. 1,500, which was negotiated down and a part payment of Rs. 500 was handed over during a pre-arranged trap on April 7, 1995. The trap mahazar recorded that ten Rs.100 notes were marked with phenolphthalein; the complainant and a shadow witness attended the accused’s office, paid Rs.500 and signalled a raiding party. The accused’s fingers were washed in sodium carbonate solution and produced a pink reaction on washing, and the marked notes were matched with the entrustment mahazar. The police also seized the accused’s trouser.

A Special Case (PC) was filed and the Trial Court convicted the accused on June 14, 2006, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The Karnataka High Court, however, in a judgment dated March 9, 2012, acquitted the accused, pointing to inconsistencies between the testimony of the complainant and the shadow witness, discrepancies in the dates of earlier filings, and variation in accounts as to which hand handled the marked notes and which trouser pocket contained the money. The High Court concluded that the oral evidence did not satisfactorily establish demand or acceptance and held that Section 20 (presumption) did not apply.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence afresh and observed that the Trial Court had properly appreciated ocular testimony and documentary exhibits, including an earlier application (Ex.P22) and the trap mahazar. The Court noted established law that, to prove an offence under Section 7, the prosecution must show: (i) that the accused was a public servant at the material time; (ii) that he accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration; and (iii) that the gratification was for an illegal purpose. The bench held that these ingredients were satisfied on the record and that the High Court had given undue importance to minor lapses which arose after a decade-long delay in trial and witness testimony. The Supreme Court therefore restored the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and dismissed the State’s challenge to the quantum of sentence; the accused was ordered to surrender within two weeks.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2013; Citation: 2025 INSC 492 Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Nagesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel for the State of Karnataka (name not specified in judgment) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nuli, Senior Counsel for the Respondent-accused