Karnataka High Court's Acquittal in Bribery Case Set Aside by Supreme Court.


16 April 2025 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a significant judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of India overturned the acquittal granted by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, in a criminal appeal concerning a bribery case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The apex court reinstated the conviction previously rendered by the trial court against a Village Accountant accused of demanding and accepting a bribe.

The case originated from a complaint filed on April 7, 1995, by an individual seeking a change in mutation entries in revenue records. The complainant alleged that the accused, a Village Accountant, demanded a bribe of ?2,000, which was later negotiated down to Rs. 1,500, with an initial payment of Rs. 1,000 and the remaining Rs. 500 upon completion of the work. Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the Lokayukta police, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent laying of a trap.

During the trap operation on April 7, 1995, the complainant handed over Rs. 500, consisting of currency notes smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, to the accused. These notes were allegedly accepted by the accused with his left hand and placed in his pants pocket. Upon a signal from the complainant, the raiding party intervened. Washing the left hand fingers of the accused with Sodium Carbonate solution yielded a pink color, indicating contact with the tainted currency. The numbers on the recovered currency notes matched those recorded in the pre-trap memorandum.

 

 

The trial court, after examining the evidence presented, convicted the accused under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500 for each offense, with an additional one month of simple imprisonment in case of default in fine payment.

However, the High Court, in its judgment dated March 9, 2012, reversed the trial court's decision and acquitted the accused. The High Court cited discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW2) regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe, particularly concerning which hand the accused used to accept the money and in which pocket he placed it. The High Court deemed the trial court's findings on the evidence of these witnesses as "highly perverse."

Aggrieved by the High Court's acquittal, the State of Karnataka approached the Supreme Court. The counsel for the state argued that the trial court's conviction was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and should not have been set aside on the basis of minor contradictions that did not go to the root of the case. The counsel emphasized the recovery of the bribe money from the accused's possession and invoked the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act.

The counsel for the accused, on the other hand, contended that the complainant had suppressed material facts and that the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses cast serious doubt on the veracity of the complaint. It was argued that there was no reliable evidence to substantiate the demand for the bribe.

After hearing both sides and perusing the records, the Supreme Court sided with the prosecution. The apex court held that the trial court had arrived at a "just and proper conclusion" based on the evidence and that the High Court had committed a "serious error" in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court on "erroneous grounds."

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had given undue importance to minor discrepancies and had failed to appreciate the trustworthy ocular testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence. The court noted that PW1 (Complainant) had provided a detailed account establishing the demand and acceptance of the bribe. While acknowledging a minor inconsistency in PW1's testimony regarding the date of application, the Supreme Court held that this was insufficient to discard the other reliable parts of his testimony concerning the demand and acceptance.

The Supreme Court also highlighted the testimony of PW2 (Shadow Witness), which corroborated the complainant's account of the accused accepting the bribe, counting it, and placing it in his pant pocket. The court found that the High Court had erroneously ignored the consistent testimony of this witness.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the incident occurred in 1995, and the witnesses were examined after a significant time lapse of approximately ten years. The court opined that minor discrepancies in their recollection were natural and should not be a basis for discarding their entire testimony, especially concerning the core aspects of demand and acceptance.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Consequently, the apex court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside the judgment of the High Court, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Considering the long passage of time since the incident, the counsel for the accused requested a reduction in the quantum of sentence. However, the Supreme Court, noting that the accused had enjoyed bail throughout the trial and appeal process, declined to show any leniency and upheld the sentence awarded by the trial court. The accused has been directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.


Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act - 1988  

Section 13, Prevention of Corruption Act - 1988 

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988