19 May 2025 Corruption >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State (through the Lokayuktha Police) against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had acquitted an Extension Officer in a corruption case. The High Court had overturned the Trial Court's conviction of the officer under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case revolved around allegations that the Respondent, an Extension Officer in the Taluka Panchayath, Davanagere, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 1,500 from a complainant, Mr. E.R. Krishnamurthy. The bribe was allegedly sought to forward a spot inspection report related to the complainant's Validity Certificate for a Primary School Teacher post. A trap was conducted on February 7, 2007, leading to the seizure of phenolphthalein-smeared currency notes from the Respondent.

Key points of the Supreme Court's analysis:

• Lack of Credible Demand: The Court emphasized that the prosecution's case hinged primarily on the complainant's testimony regarding the demand for the bribe. However, the complainant's evidence was found to be unreliable and contradictory. Specifically, he initially denied awareness of a spot inspection report prepared by the Respondent just two days prior to the trap but later admitted to it and identified his and his father's signatures on the document.
• Contradictory Witness Testimony: The testimony of PW2, a prosecution witness, was also found to be inconsistent and self-contradictory regarding whether he had heard the demand for the bribe.
• Work Already Done: Crucially, the Court noted that the prosecution's own witnesses stated that the Respondent had already forwarded the concerned file before the alleged payment of the bribe. This raised doubts about the necessity or motive for the complainant to pay the amount, if the work for which it was supposedly sought was already completed.
• Presumption Under Section 20 of the Act: While acknowledging that Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act allows for a presumption of guilt once demand and acceptance are proven, the Court reiterated that this presumption does not apply if the demand itself is not established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that the entire chain of demand, acceptance, and recovery must be complete for a conviction under the Act.
• Upholding High Court's Acquittal: Despite the High Court's judgment lacking detailed factual reasoning for overturning the conviction, the Supreme Court, after an independent review of the material, concurred with the High Court's conclusion that the demand for the bribe was not proven.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the Respondent, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial element of "demand" beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988