Whether demand of bribe without acceptance amounts to offence under Prevention of Corruption Act?

Section 7 on the other hand, is wider and uses the words "accepts" or "obtains" or "agrees to accept" or "attempts to obtain". All these four words or phrases are used for specific purposes, thus Section 7 envisages that acceptance of bribe money is covered under the words "accepts" or "obtains". However, the use of the phrases "agrees to accept" or "attempts to obtain" would clearly cover the case of demand. In these eventualities, there may or may not be acceptance and yet the offence is complete as per Section 7. Thus there is no manner of doubt to hold that the demand is covered under Section 7. Similar phrases are used in Section 13 (1)(a) and 13 (1)(b), thus under both these clauses, mere demand without acceptance is envisaged for which punishment is provided. Therefore, it cannot be said that mere demand is not an offence.

18. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok S/o. Ganapati Kolte & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported MANU/MH/3045/2016 : (2016) ALL MR (Cri.) page 4317 has already dealt with this issue and has squarely held that for constituting offence under Section 7, there was no need to show the acceptance of bribe and mere agreeing to accept or attempting to accept the bribe from any person is sufficient. In the said case, the applicant therein had prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. on the similar set of facts. In that case, demand was made but suspecting the proposed trap, the accused decided not to accept the bribe amount. This case is very similar to the case before us and we are in agreement with the ratio laid down in the said judgment.

19. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that each demand constituted a separate offence by itself. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 1077 of 2017

Decided On: 13.03.2018

Rajendra Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Savant and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.

Print Page

Whether a person can be convicted under prevention of corruption Act if demand and acceptance of bribe by him is not proved?

In such circumstances, there is no evidence to
prove that the appellant directly accepted the money
from the Complainant. Since the plea of conspiracy
against the appellant and Rajinder Kumar failed, it
cannot be held that money (Rs.4000/)
recovered
from the possession of Rajinder Kumar was as a
fact the bribe money meant for the appellant for
holding him guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal
from the charge of conspiracy was given to Rajinder
Kumar but was not given to the appellant.

31) In our view, the prosecution, therefore, failed
to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of
Rs.4000/by
the appellant from the Complainant
on 29.03.1995 as per the charges framed against
him.
32) Since in order to attract the rigors of Sections
7, 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was
under a legal obligation to prove the twin
requirements of “demand and acceptance of bribe
money by the accused”, the proving of one alone
but not the other was not sufficient. The appellant
is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges
framed against him under the PC Act too. (See para
8 of M.K. Harshan vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 11
SCC 720)
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1276 OF 2010

Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation 

Dated:October 09, 2018
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Print Page

Whether person can be held guilty under prevention of corruption Act if demand for money is non verbal?

The point sought to be made by the counsel for the respondent is that when the complainant met the accused in the corridor of the hospital and informed him that he had brought the amount with him, the accused is said to have told him to go over to his chamber and while moving forward had been met with another person, who had briefly engaged the accused in conversation and had left. The accused is then said to have turned towards the complainant who was right behind and held out his hand and grunted. In other words, non-verbally communicating that the complainant was to hand over the bribe amount. The counsel for the respondent possibly seeks to contend that since there was no verbal demand for bribe, there is no demand. To accept such a proposition would be naive. It was as much a demand as could be made vocally. The same was duly witnessed by the raiding team.

Therefore, the trial court was in gross error in acquitting the accused on such a finding as is highlighted above. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 2011

Decided On: 17.01.2017

 State

Vs.

 M. Hanumantharayappa

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anand Byrareddy, J.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ1258

Print Page

Whether accused can be held guilty for corruption if there is no demand for bribe?

The prosecution examined the other fair price shop dealers in Kurnool as PWs 3, 4 and 6 to prove that the accused was receiving monthly mamools from them. PWs 4 and 6 did not state so and they were declared hostile. PW-3 though in the examination-in-chief stated so, in the cross-examination turned round and stated that the accused never asked any monthly mamool and he did not pay Rs.50/- at any time. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence underSection 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. 

Supreme Court of India

N.Sunkanna vs State Of A.P on 14 October, 2015

Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan

REPORTABLE

Print Page