New Delhi: In a significant ruling aimed at closing loopholes in anti-corruption laws, the Supreme Court has held that a public servant can be prosecuted for corruption even if they do not personally demand or receive a bribe.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh ruled that Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act covers indirect attempts to seek illegal gratification through intermediaries or for the benefit of another person.
The court set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against Sub-Inspector Rangayya, who was accused of seeking a bribe through subordinates and a private individual.
According to the case, the complainant alleged that police officers had seized his vehicle and registered a case against him for the alleged illegal sale of ration rice. Subsequently, a private individual allegedly demanded Rs 50,000 from the complainant on the instructions of senior police officials. The complainant claimed he was told to “make the boys happy” and do something for the other police personnel involved in the matter.
Based on the allegations, the Karnataka Lokayukta Police registered a corruption case against the sub-inspector, a police constable and a private person under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
However, the Karnataka High Court later quashed the FIR, observing that there was no direct demand or acceptance of a bribe by the sub-inspector.
Reversing that decision, the Supreme Court said the High Court had adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of the law. Writing the judgment, Justice Singh observed that the Prevention of Corruption Act does not require a public servant to personally demand or receive a bribe for an offence to be made out.
The court noted that Explanation 2 to Section 7 specifically covers situations where a public servant obtains an undue advantage through another person, including subordinate public servants, or seeks a benefit for someone else.
The bench warned that accepting the High Court’s interpretation would create a dangerous loophole allowing senior officials to use intermediaries to collect bribes while maintaining plausible deniability.
The judges said such an interpretation would undermine the objective of the anti-corruption law and render important statutory provisions ineffective.
Holding that indirect bribery is precisely the type of conduct the law seeks to prevent, the Supreme Court restored the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the sub-inspector.
