The Supreme Court has held that merely proving that bribe money was handed over by a complainant to an intermediary who claimed to be acting on behalf of a public servant is not, by itself, sufficient to establish the public servant’s guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court clarified that the prosecution must establish, through cogent evidence, the necessary link between the money received by the intermediary and the alleged public servant. Where it is not proved that the money actually reached the public servant or was intended to reach him, a conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the intermediary’s receipt of the tainted money.
Background Of The Case
The case concerned Bharat Raj Meena, a former Railway Protection Force officer, who was prosecuted in a corruption case arising out of a CBI trap.
The prosecution alleged that an amount of ₹10,000 had been demanded in connection with securing a posting. According to the prosecution, the demand was made through another RPF employee, Constable Anantha Narayanan, who was subsequently apprehended while accepting the tainted currency.
The trial court convicted Meena, and the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction. He thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging the findings against him.
Supreme Court Examines The Evidence
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh examined whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Meena had demanded and accepted illegal gratification through the intermediary.
The Court found that the evidence established, at most, that money had changed hands between the complainant and the intermediary, who had invoked the name of the appellant.
However, this circumstance alone could not establish that Meena himself had accepted the bribe.
Money Must Be Linked To The Public Servant
The Supreme Court emphasised that where an intermediary is alleged to have accepted illegal gratification on behalf of a public servant, the prosecution must establish the necessary link between the intermediary, the money and the public servant.
The Court found that the prosecution had not established that the money received by the intermediary was ultimately intended to reach Meena or had actually reached him.
Therefore, the mere fact that the intermediary possessed the tainted currency could not automatically be treated as proof of the public servant’s acceptance of illegal gratification.
Demand And Acceptance Must Be Proved
The Court also referred to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), which held that the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Such facts may be established through direct evidence or, where appropriate, through circumstantial evidence.
The present judgment does not mean that a public servant can escape liability merely because a bribe was received through an intermediary. Rather, the prosecution must establish through reliable evidence that the intermediary was acting for the public servant and that the required elements of the offence are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Reliance On Earlier Supreme Court Judgment
The Court also relied upon its earlier decision in R.P.S. Yadav v. CBI, emphasising that the evidentiary chain must be complete.
Where the prosecution alleges that a bribe was routed through an intermediary, the evidence must sufficiently connect the payment to the accused public servant. An incomplete chain, consisting only of the intermediary’s receipt of money, cannot by itself sustain a conviction.
Conviction Set Aside
After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against Meena beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside his conviction in relation to the alleged transaction.
The Bench held that the existence of reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s demand and acceptance of illegal gratification meant that the conviction could not be sustained.
Significance Of The Judgment
The judgment reiterates important principles governing corruption prosecutions:
- Mere recovery of bribe money from an intermediary does not automatically establish the guilt of the public servant.
- The prosecution must establish the connection between the intermediary’s receipt of money and the accused public servant.
- Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Circumstantial evidence can establish demand or acceptance, but the circumstances must form a reliable evidentiary chain.
- The prosecution cannot rely solely on the fact that an intermediary received tainted currency while invoking the name of the public servant.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of establishing a complete evidentiary link in corruption cases involving intermediaries. While the Prevention of Corruption Act can apply where illegal gratification is routed through another person, the prosecution must still prove the public servant’s involvement through reliable evidence.
In the absence of evidence connecting the money received by the intermediary to the accused public servant, a conviction cannot be sustained merely because the intermediary claimed to have acted on the public servant’s behalf.
