Indirect demand of bribe by public servants also amounts to crime of corruption, rules SC

A public servant need not personally demand or receive a bribe to attract the wrath of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Holding that Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act covered attempts to demand or receive a bribe through third parties and for the benefit of other persons, a bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh set aside a Karnataka High Court verdict that had quashed an FIR against a sub-inspector accused of indirectly seeking a bribe through his subordinates.

It restored the corruption FIR against Sub-Inspector Rangayya who, along with other police officers, had allegedly threatened the complainant, seized his car and registered a case against him for alleged illegal sale of ration rice.

Thereafter, a third person allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 50,000 from the complainant on the instruction of the Police Inspector who asked the complainant to ‘do something for the other police officials’ or ‘make those boys happy’.

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 person.

The Karnataka High Court, however, quashed the FIR on the ground that there was no direct demand or acceptance of bribe by Rangayya.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Singh said the high court made a mistake in holding that the act of bribery by a public servant must be direct, personal and that the demand must be expressed for himself.

The top court faulted the high court for failing to interpret Section 7(a) read with Explanation 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which dealt with a situation where a public servant accepted a bribe through another person by taking the help of another public servant.

“The PC Act does not countenance any such straitjacketed formulation limiting to acts of demand and acceptance of bribe by the official himself as explained by expansive provision of Explanation 2. It can be for obtaining the undue advantage ‘for another person’ also,” the bench said in its May 26 verdict.

“Further, an attempt to obtain a bribe through subordinates who are also public servants, is precisely the kind of indirect corruption that the legislature, by enacting Explanation 2 to Section 7, has sought to bring within the fold of the statute,” it added.

“The interpretation adopted by the high court, if permitted to stand, would limit the broad scope of Section 7 read with Explanation 2, and would create a pernicious loophole in the anti-corruption law by permitting senior public officials to orchestrate and direct the collection of illegal gratification through their public servant subordinates and park the benefits in the account of the ‘another person’ for whose benefit the public servant intends, while maintaining personal deniability.

“Such a construction would subvert the manifest purpose and policy of the PC Act and render the Explanation 2 redundant, and thus, cannot be countenanced,” the top court said, restoring the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the sub-inspector.