Read Time: 07 minutes

Setting aside the order of conviction against one Commercial Tax Officer, the Supreme Court on Monday held that the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

Court said that Section 7 of the Act providing punishment for the public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof.

To further clarify its stand, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka relied on the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another wherein the top court had said,

“The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (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 Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.”

With this View, court went on to set aside the conviction of one K Shanthamma for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

Shanthamma was working as a Commercial Tax Officer at Secunderabad. The complainant, one Shri R. Seetharamulu @ Sharma, a supervisor in Farmers’ Service Co-operative Society used to file returns of commercial tax of the said Society.

The returns of the said Society for the year 1996-97 were pending for assessment. Therefore, Shanthamma issued a notice on February 14, 2000, calling upon the said Society to produce cash book, general ledger, and purchase and sales statements for the year 1996-97. On the Society's Managing Director's instructions, R. Seetharamulu went to Shanthamma's office along with concerned record.

It was then that a demand was allegedly made by Shanthamma of Rs.3,000 for issuing an assessment order. These demands were allegedly made repeatedly on three more instances.

Subsequently, on March 27, 2000, R. Seetharamulu along with the Managing Director of the said Society, visited the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Hyderabad and filed a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB.

Accordingly, a trap was laid and Shanthamma fell in. The currency notes given to Shanthamma tallied with the serial numbers of currency notes described in pre-trap proceedings. Thereafter, a seizure followed.

The Special Court found that the demand of the bribe and its acceptance was proved by the prosecution in this case. The High Court too affirmed the said finding.

However, when the matter reached the Top Court, it held that the prosecution’s case about the demand of bribe appeared to be highly doubtful. Court noted that the independent witness who was supposed to accompany R. Seetharamulu admitted in his cross-examination that when Seetharamulu entered the officer’s chamber, he remained outside in the corridor.

Moreover, it was found that Seetharamulu did not state that the Officer reiterated her demand at the time of trap.

Therefore, finding no other evidence of the alleged demand, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of Shanthamma and acquitted her of all the charges.

Case Title: K. Shanthamma v. The State of Telangana