THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, June 2: The Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant need not personally demand or receive a bribe to attract liability under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), holding that attempts to obtain an undue advantage through subordinates or third parties are also punishable under the law.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against a police sub-inspector accused of indirectly seeking a bribe through subordinate officials.
Case Background
The case relates to allegations against Rangayya, a sub-inspector posted at Siruguppa Police Station in Karnataka.
According to the complaint, police officials seized the complainant’s vehicle and registered a case against him for allegedly selling ration rice illegally. Subsequently, a bribe of ₹50,000 was allegedly demanded through a third person on the instructions of the sub-inspector.
The officer was also accused of telling the complainant to “do something for the other police officials” or “make those boys happy.”
Based on the complaint, the Karnataka Lokayukta Police registered an FIR under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the sub-inspector, a constable and a private individual.
The Karnataka High Court later quashed the FIR, observing that there was no direct demand or acceptance of money by the police officer.
Supreme Court’s Interpretation
The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to properly interpret Section 7(a) read with Explanation 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Bench noted that the law covers situations where a public servant seeks an undue advantage through another person or for the benefit of another individual.
“The Respondent No. 1’s implicit yet unmistakable direction to the Complainant to provide illegal gratification to his subordinate police officials… falls squarely within the scope of ‘attempt to obtain’ an ‘undue advantage’ ‘for another person’,” the court observed.
The judges emphasized that it was immaterial whether the accused officer personally received or intended to receive any portion of the alleged bribe.
Bribe Need Not Be Directly Received
The court clarified that actual receipt of illegal gratification is not a prerequisite for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“Section 7 expressly includes the ‘attempt to obtain’ an undue advantage and is not confined to actual obtainment,” the judgment stated.
The Bench held that public servants who seek bribes through intermediaries or subordinates can be prosecuted in the same manner as those who directly demand or accept bribes.
‘Veiled Demand’ Can Also Constitute an Offence
Writing the judgment, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said the allegations amounted to a “veiled demand” for illegal gratification for the benefit of associates.
The court observed that the High Court had wrongly introduced a requirement that the demand must be direct, personal and expressly made for the official’s own benefit.
“The PC Act does not countenance any such straitjacketed formulation limiting acts of demand and acceptance of bribe by the official himself,” the court said.
Warning Against Legal Loopholes
The Supreme Court cautioned that a narrow interpretation of the law could create loopholes allowing senior officials to use subordinates to collect bribes while avoiding personal accountability.
“Such a construction would subvert the manifest purpose and policy of the PC Act and render Explanation 2 redundant,” the Bench observed.
FIR Restored
Holding that the complaint and FIR prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court restored the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the police officer.
The court clarified that issues relating to guilt or innocence would be determined during the trial.