MERE ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE DOES NOT CONVICT AN ACCUSED U/S 7 OF THE PC ACT - SC

The Top Court observed that the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and acceptance of such bribe is a sine qua non for proving the offence. The prosecution's failure to prove the demand for a bribe and mere recovery of such amount from the accused person would not entail his conviction under Section 7 or 13 of the Prevention Of Corruption Act ("The Act").

In this instant case, the accused, a Commercial Tax Officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Act. As per the prosecution, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000/- for issuing an assessment order on 24th February 2000. The conviction was upheld by the HC.

In appeal, the SC bench observed that there is only witness to the alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe by the accused. The bench further observed that PW1 did not state that the appellant restated her demand at the time of trap and that the version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief is an improvement. 

The Top Court referred to the judgment in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh. Wherein, it was stated that "the proof of demand of bribe is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in its absence the charges would fail. Mere acceptance of such amount or recovery of such amount would not be sufficient to bring charges under the mentioned sections." 

In this present case, the prosecution failed to prove "demand" and hence, section 7 was not established. The bench acquitted the accused.