[S.7 PC Act] Kerala High Court Distinguishes Between Acceptance & Obtainment Of Bribe; Says Proof Of Offer, Acceptance Or Prior Demand Must Be Established

Justice K Babu observed that in case of obtainment under Section 7 of the PC Act, a public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver on accepting the demand offers to pay illegal gratification.

“ To attract the offence under Section 7(a) the prosecution has to establish that the public servant obtained or accepted or attempted to obtain from any person an undue advantage. In order to attract the offence under Section 7(a), the prosecution has to establish that the petitioner voluntarily accepted money, knowing it to be bribe. If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is definitely a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act, even in the absence of prior demand. On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification, which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment.”

The Court further stated that in case of acceptance, the prosecution need not prove demand but in the case of obtainment, the prosecution has to prove prior demand.

“In the case of acceptance, as mentioned in the first category, the prosecution need not establish demand but in the case of obtainment, the prosecution has to establish prior demand by the public servant.”

It also stated that in case of acceptance, the prosecution has to establish offer by the bribe giver and acceptance by the public servant. And, in case of obtainment, the prosecution has to establish offer by the bribe giver and demand by the public servant are to be proved.

The petitioner is accused under Section 7 (offences relating to public servant being bribed) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1918 has approached the Court to quash the FIR and further proceedings initiated against him by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).

The allegation was that VACB recovered unaccounted money from the car of the appellant who was the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Social Forestry) which he allegedly received as a bribe. Thus, he was alleged to have dishonestly accepted undue advantage by taking bribes and misusing his official position.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no evidence that he received money voluntarily knowing it to be a bribe and that there were no witnesses to prove the prosecution case. It was argued that as per Section 7 (a), proof of demand of illegal gratification was essential and a mere recovery of money was insufficient.

On the other, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that proof of voluntary acceptance of money was sufficient for constituting an offence under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act.

The Court found that certain envelopes were seized from the car of the petitioner with currency notes, but it stated that the prosecution was unable to prove that money was accepted as a bribe from the bribe giver. It stated that there was no credible evidence to prove that the petitioner accepted money as a bribe.

On drawing the distinction between acceptance and obtainment under Section 7 of the PC Act, the Court stated thus:

“In other words, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver, which is accepted by the public servant, in the case of acceptance and a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn, there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, in the case of obtainment.”

In the facts of the case, the Court observed that there was no evidence to prove that money was collected as a bribe and that there was no material to prove the offer and acceptance by the petitioner.

Relying upon Apex Court decisions, the Court stated that there were no materials to show 'grave suspicion' against the petitioner for continuing the investigation. It thus stated that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of the Court.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and further proceedings against the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner: Senior Advocate Sumathy Dandapany, Advocates Millu Dandapani, Rameez Nooh, Ronit Zachariah, Gopika P.J., Fathima K., Siraj Abdul Salam, Roy Thomas

Counsel for the respondents: Special Government Pleader Rajesh A, Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 62

Case title: E Pradeeep Kumar IFS v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 4431 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Order