Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Karnataka v. Chandrashala has held that the amount of bribe is not substantial to make presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).

What was the Background of The State of Karnataka v. Chandrashala Case?

• The case involves a government employee named Chandrasha (defendant) who worked as a First Division Assistant in the Sub Treasury Office in Afzalpur, Karnataka.
• The incident began on 29^th July 2009, when Subhash Chandra S. Alur, a Second Division Assistant at Shri Mahanteshwar High School, submitted a bill for encashment of surrender leave salary for himself and three non-teaching staff members to the Sub Treasury Office.
• According to the complaint, when defendant initially reviewed the bill, he instructed Subhashchandra to take it back, claiming it could not be approved.
• When Subhashchandra requested the bill be passed, the defendant allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000 (Rs. 500 from each person) to influence his higher officials and get the bill processed.
• Unwilling to pay the bribe, Subhashchandra approached the Lokayukta (anti-corruption) office on 30^th July 2009. The Lokayukta officials provided him with a tape recorder to document any conversations about the bribe.
• On 5^th August 2009, a trap was set. Subhashchandra went to the Sub Treasury Office with witnesses, and the conversation about the bribe was recorded. When the defendant demanded and accepted the Rs. 2,000 bribes, Lokayukta police personnel intervened and caught him in the act.
• The currency notes were marked with special powder, and the defendant was found with the tainted money in his pocket. A case was registered under the PCA specifically Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2).
• The case went through multiple legal stages - first being convicted by the trial court, then acquitted by the Karnataka High Court, and finally reaching the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court observed:
  • Legal Standards for Corruption Cases:
    • The Court emphasized that to prove corruption, two fundamental facts must be established:
    • Demand
    • Acceptance of illegal gratification
    • Mere possession of money is not sufficient to constitute a corruption offence.
    • The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe.
  • Regarding the Specific Case:
    • The Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
    • The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of corruption.
    • The cheque for the bill was prepared but not issued, which contradicted the respondent's claim that no work was pending.
  • Procedural Compliance:
    • The prosecution had obtained proper sanction from the competent authority (Director of Treasury).
    • The sanction order was based on a thorough review of documents and prima facie evidence.
  • Interpretation of Legal Provisions:
    • The Court clarified that the value of gratification should be considered in proportion to the act sought.
    • The amount of bribe does not determine corruption - the overall circumstances matter
    • The presumption under Section 20 of the PCA is similar to presumptions in other legal contexts, placing the burden of proof on the accused.
  • Critique of High Court's Earlier Judgment:
    • The Supreme Court found the High Court's acquittal order "illegal, erroneous and contrary to the materials on record"
• The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's acquittal and restoring the trial court's original conviction and sentence against the defendant.

Relevant Provisions of PCA:

• Section 7: Offence relating to public servant being bribed as:
  • The provision outlines three primary types of corrupt actions by a public servant:
    • Obtaining an undue advantage with the intention to:
      • Perform a public duty improperly or dishonestly
      • Cause a public duty to be performed improperly
      • Forbear from performing a public duty
    • Accepting an undue advantage as a reward for:
      • Improperly performing a public duty
      • Forbearing from performing a public duty
    • Performing or inducing another public servant to perform a public duty improperly:
      • In anticipation of an undue advantage
      • As a consequence of accepting an undue advantage
  • Punishment includes imprisonment of minimum of 3 years, maximum of 7 years along with fine.
  • The section also has some important explanations:
    • Explanation 1:
    • The mere act of obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain an undue advantage is an offence.
    • This is true even if the public duty was ultimately performed correctly.
    • Explanation 2:
      • "Obtains", "accepts", or "attempts to obtain" includes scenarios where a public servant:
      • Obtains advantage for themselves or another person
      • Abuses their position
      • Uses personal influence over another public servant
      • Uses any corrupt or illegal means
      • The method of obtaining the advantage (direct or through a third party) is irrelevant.
• Section 13 (1) (d): Criminal misconduct by a public servant
  • Subsection (1) of this section states that a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if:
    • By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
    • By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
    • While holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
  • Section 13 (2) states that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 20: Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage
  • In any trial concerning offences punishable under section 7 or section 11, if it is established that a public servant has accepted, obtained, or attempted to obtain any undue advantage, a legal presumption arises.
  • This presumption states that the public servant is deemed to have accepted or attempted to obtain that undue advantage unless proven otherwise.
  • This provision aims to deter corrupt practices among public officials by placing the burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate their innocence.

Punishment for Bribery Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

• Section 173 of the act states the provisions for the punishment for bribery:
  • Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.
  • It is further accompanied with an explanation as “Treating” means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision.