Delhi High Court: Unsolicited Bribe Offer is a Completed Offence, Upholds Cop's Conviction

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on anti-corruption law, has held that an unsolicited offer of a bribe to a public servant constitutes a completed offence of abetment under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, irrespective of whether the bribe was demanded or accepted.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the conviction of a Delhi Police ASI, Tara Dutt, for attempting to bribe a sitting Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) with Rs. 50,000 to favour a candidate in an interview for a peon's post. However, the Court acquitted the candidate, Mukul Kumar, and his father, Ramesh Kumar, of all charges, citing a lack of evidence to prove their involvement in a criminal conspiracy.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to August 26, 2017, when ASI Tara Dutt approached the Naib Court of ASJ Chander Shekhar, who was a member of a selection committee for recruiting peons in Delhi's district courts. Dutt, claiming to be sent by a retired magistrate, Dayanand Sharma, attempted to deliver a sealed envelope to the judge.

When the judge declined to meet him, Dutt left the envelope with the Naib Court, HC Surender Kumar. Upon the judge's instruction, the envelope was opened and found to contain Rs. 50,000 in cash (25 notes of Rs. 2,000) wrapped inside a photocopy of the interview letter for candidate Mukul Kumar. The judge immediately filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR.

The trial court convicted all three appellants—Tara Dutt, Mukul Kumar, and Ramesh Kumar—for abetment under Section 12 of the PC Act and for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC, sentencing them to three years of imprisonment.

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants challenged their conviction on several grounds:

- Tara Dutt: Argued that the key prosecution witness, Naib Court HC Surender Kumar, had a personal grudge against him and had falsely implicated him. He also challenged the admissibility of electronic evidence like Call Detail Records (CDRs) and argued that the prosecution failed to prove a motive.

- Mukul & Ramesh Kumar: Contended there was no evidence of a "meeting of minds" to establish a conspiracy. They argued that the mere recovery of Mukul's interview letter was insufficient to prove their involvement, and the withdrawal of Rs. 20,000 from Ramesh Kumar's account did not link him to the bribe money.

Court's Legal Analysis: Abetment vs. Conspiracy

The High Court conducted a detailed analysis, separating the charges of criminal conspiracy and abetment.

On Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC):

Justice Krishna found the evidence against Mukul Kumar and his father, Ramesh Kumar, to be purely circumstantial and insufficient to prove an agreement to bribe the judge.

- The Court noted that besides the recovery of the interview letter, there was "no other cogent evidence" linking Mukul to the crime. Phone calls between him and Tara Dutt, who were neighbours, were deemed inconclusive without evidence of their content.

- Similarly, for Ramesh Kumar, the court found that a bank withdrawal of Rs. 20,000 three days before the incident was not enough to prove he arranged and supplied the bribe money.

- Finding the chain of conspiracy broken, the court acquitted all appellants of the charge under Section 120B IPC, stating, "The prosecution has miserably failed to establish any conspiracy between Tara Dutt with the co-accused persons."

On Abetment (Section 12 PC Act): The central legal question was whether an unaccepted bribe offer constitutes abetment. The Court delved into the legislative history, noting that Section 12 of the PC Act is the successor to Section 165A of the IPC. It cited a series of Supreme Court judgments under the old provision, which consistently held that a tender of money to a public servant to influence a decision was a completed offence.

Disagreeing with contrary views from other High Courts, Justice Krishna endorsed the reasoning of the Madras and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, stating: > "This Court concurs with the reasoning of the Madras and Madhya Pradesh High Courts... The legislative intent behind the PC Act was to consolidate and strengthen the laws against corruption. To hold that an offer of a bribe is not an offence unless it is accepted, would defeat the very purpose of the statute. The act of offering a bribe is a pernicious attempt to corrupt a public servant and the moment the offer is made by giving money it is a completed offence of abetment."

The court found the evidence against Tara Dutt to be "overwhelming." The testimonies of the complainant judge (PW-12), his Naib Court (PW-3), and the panch witness (PW-6) formed an unbroken chain proving that Dutt delivered the envelope containing the bribe money.

Final Verdict

Based on the analysis, the High Court delivered a split verdict:

- Tara Dutt (Appellant in Crl. A. 315/2021): Acquitted of the criminal conspiracy charge (S. 120B IPC) but his conviction for abetment under Section 12 of the PC Act was upheld.

- Mukul Kumar & Ramesh Kumar (Appellants in Crl. A. 319/2021): Acquitted of all charges due to lack of evidence proving their role in any conspiracy or abetment. Their appeal was allowed.

The judgment clarifies a crucial aspect of anti-corruption law, reinforcing that the act of offering a bribe is a standalone offence, and the integrity of a public servant in refusing it does not absolve the bribe-giver of criminal liability.