Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Village Assistant And Reduces Village Administrative Officer’s Sentence To Statutory Minimum Under Prevention Of Corruption Act

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals by two village-level functionaries challenging their convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act arising out of allegations of demand and acceptance of a Rs. 500 bribe in 2004; leave was granted in both special leave petitions and arguments were heard on merit.

The Court allowed the appeal of the Village Assistant and partially allowed the appeal of the Village Administrative Officer, holding that conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act required proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and that mere receipt of money on another’s directions, without proof of connivance or a charge of abetment, did not sustain conviction. The Court relied on the principle that “demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non” for conviction under the provisions in question and noted the effect of delay and the small amount involved in reducing sentence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is no one’s case that A-2 ever demanded any illegal gratification. He undoubtedly accepted the money on the directions of A-1 and kept the same with him. So, there was no demand of illegal gratification on his part. The demand made by A-1 cannot be attributed to A-2 as no evidence was adduced which could establish that A-2 was a habitual offender working in aid with A-1 or was facilitating A-1 in demanding and receiving illegal gratification. Accordingly, in the absence of any allegation or evidence that A-2 demanded bribe from the complainant or he was acting in connivence with A-1, he cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the crime of demanding and receiving illegal gratification.” The Court also noted the legal position in Neeraj Datta that “for recording a conviction under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.”

Background The complainant applied for a community certificate and was directed to the Village Administrative Officer (A‑1). He alleged that A‑1 demanded Rs. 500 on 9.11.2004 and reiterated the demand on 27.11.2004. A trap was arranged on 3.12.2004 with phenolphthalein‑treated notes. The complainant handed the marked notes to the Village Assistant (A‑2) on instructions of A‑1; the notes were recovered and chemical analysis confirmed phenolphthalein. An FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act followed and a chargesheet was filed alleging offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2). The Special Court convicted both accused on 23.11.2011 and sentenced A‑1 to concurrent terms of three years and two years RI with fines, and A‑2 to shorter terms; the High Court dismissed separate appeals by both accused on 5.12.2018.

On appeal to this Court, senior counsel for the appellants argued that A‑1’s sentence was excessive given his age (68), the trivial amount involved and the long delay, and that A‑2 could not be convicted in the absence of evidence of demand or a charge of abetment. The State urged that the prosecution proved demand and receipt and that deterrence required strict punishment. The Court applied binding precedent including Neeraj Datta, and followed earlier authority that acceptance of money by a third person without charge of abetment does not sustain conviction (Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad). The Court held that both demand and receipt were proved against A‑1 and therefore confirmed his conviction, but reduced his sentence to the statutory minimum of one year for each offence in view of the long pendency and the small amount. The Court set aside the conviction of A‑2 and allowed his appeal. No interim directions were necessary; the appeals concluded with modification of sentence for A‑1 and acquittal of A‑2.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9964 & 7442 of 2019; 2025 INSC 967 Case Title: A. Karunanithi v. The State represented by Inspector of Police; P. Karunanithi v. The State represented by Inspector of Police Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri S. Nagamuthu, Senior Counsel (for the appellants) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for the State (names not specified in judgment)