IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would come into operation only when there is no nexus between demand and action performed – But, when fact of receipt of payment or an agreement to receive gratification stands proved, there is a clear case of nexus or corroboration and presumption itself is irrelevant.

JUDGMENT :

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

1. At the outset, it would be apposite to point out the observation of this Court in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 14 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 909 (SCC p. 17, para 6), which reads as under:

“6….. Corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politic, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of being corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.”

2. This is an appeal filed by the State against the final Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench²[Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”] in Criminal Appeal No.200105 of 2015.

3. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court set aside the order of conviction dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi³[Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the trial Court”] in Special Case No.586 of 2010 and thereby acquitted the respondent herein from the charges punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988⁴[For short, “the Act”].

4. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the records is as follows:

One Subhashchandra S. Alur (P.W.1), who was working as Second Division Assistant in Shri Mahanteshwar High School situated at Mahantapura Chinamagera Village, Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburagi District, made a complaint (Ex.P1) on 05.08.2009, alleging that after preparing a bill for encashment of surrender leave salary payable to himself and three non-teaching staff of his school, he submitted the bill to the Sub Treasury Office, Afzalpur on 29.07.2009, as per the instructions of the Block Education Officer, Afzalpur. On examination of the same, the respondent, who was working as First Division Assistant in the said office of the Sub Treasury, directed the complainant (P.W.1) to take back the bill as it cannot be passed. When the complainant made request for passing the same, the respondent demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500/- each (in total, Rs.2,000/-). On enquiry, he came to know that the respondent was in the habit of passing the bills only after receiving the bribe amount. Since the complainant was not inclined to pay the demanded amount, he went to the office of Lokayukta, Gulbarga, Karnataka, on 30.07.2009, wherein, a tape recorder was handed over to him to record the conversation of the respondent in the Sub Treasury Office. Accordingly, the complainant went to the office of the Sub Treasury and enquired with the respondent, who demanded the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- and told him that only after payment of the same, the bill will be passed, and cheque will be issued. The said conversation was recorded in the tape recorder and was handed over by the complainant to the Lokayukta Police on 05.08.2009 with a request to take action against the respondent. After receipt of the complaint, the Lokayukta Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2009 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.

5. Based on the complaint lodged by the complainant, trap was laid on 05.08.2009, in which, the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the possession of the respondent. Upon conducting a thorough investigation, the Lokayukta Police filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as Special Case No.586 of 2010 and thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. To substantiate the charges framed against the respondent, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.1