Conviction Under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act Can Stand Even if Conspiracy Fails: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Public Servant for Bribe Demand and Acceptance

Held: The Supreme Court held that even where the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC fails, a conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can independently stand if the prosecution proves demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant. The Court held that the evidence clearly established that the respondent public servant demanded and accepted bribe money, and recovery of tainted currency corroborated the complainant’s testimony. The Court also reiterated that testimony of trap witnesses and the complainant can be relied upon if found credible and sufficiently corroborated, even if independent witnesses partially turn hostile.

Summary: The case arose from a complaint made by a partner of a firm whose income tax assessment proceedings were pending before the Income Tax Department. The complainant alleged that an Income Tax Inspector demanded a bribe of INR 5 lakhs on behalf of the Assessing Officer for finalising the scrutiny assessment without difficulty. Acting on the complaint, the Central Bureau of Investigation conducted a trap operation in which marked currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder were handed over to the complainant. During the trap proceedings, the complainant handed over an envelope containing INR 2 lakhs to the Inspector, which was subsequently recovered from his coat pocket by the trap team. Chemical tests conducted on the accused’s hands and clothing confirmed contact with the tainted currency. The trial court convicted both accused persons for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and separately under Section 7 of the Act. The High Court, however, set aside the conviction holding that conspiracy and demand were not proved. Before the Supreme Court, the CBI challenged the acquittal. The Court examined the testimonies of the complainant, trap laying officer and independent witnesses, as well as the recovery of the tainted money and the pre-trap proceedings. It held that although conspiracy between the two accused was not proved and the role of the Assessing Officer could not be established, the evidence clearly proved that the Inspector demanded and accepted the bribe. The Court emphasized that absence of proof of conspiracy does not invalidate a separate charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s acquittal of the Income Tax Inspector, restored his conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act while holding that conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was not proved, reduced the sentence from four years’ rigorous imprisonment to one year considering the age of the accused, confirmed the fine of INR 1 lakh, and directed the accused to surrender within four weeks.