(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) , S.7, S.13(1)(d), S.13(2)— Illegal gratification – Demand and acceptance – Proof – A village assistant had accepted money on directions of Village Administrative Officer and kept same with him – There was no demand of illegal gratification on the part of co-accused village assistant – There was no evidence to show that co-accused was working in aid with accused – Demand made by accused could not be attributed to co-accused – In the absence of any allegation or evidence that co-accused demanded bribe from complainant or he was acting in connivance with accused, he could not be prosecuted for offence of demanding and receiving illegal gratification – In absence of charge of abetment and proof of connivance between accused and co-accused, conviction of co-accused was erroneous.
CRLAMD No. 361 of 2011, D/- 05.12.2018(Mad)-Partly ReversedAIR 2023 SC 330-Relied on(Paras1516)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) , S.7, S.13(1)(d), S.13(2)— Illegal gratification – Demand and acceptance – Proof – Accused was serving as Village Administrative Officer and co-accused was working as a Village Assistant in same office – Evidence on record proved that accused had demanded bribe from complainant not only once but twice, and thereafter when trap was laid, bribe was accepted on his behalf by co-accused – It was established that co-accused accepted money on dictates of accused – Demand and receipt of illegal gratification was duly proved by credible evidence – Conviction of accused was proper.
(C) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) , S.7, S.13(1)(d), S.13(2)— Constitution of India , Art.142— Illegal gratification – Reduction of sentence – Punishment of three years RI and two years RI respectively was imposed on accused for commission of offences punishable under S.13(1) (d) read with S.13(2) and under S.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act – Offence was committed in 2004 and accused had suffered on account of pendency of the trial and appeal for a long time – Small amount of Rs 500/- was involved – Court found that it would be just and proper to award minimum sentence prescribed under Act – Sentence of imprisonment was reduced to statutory minimum of one year for both offences.