The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the main accused under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proven. However, the conviction of the co-accused was set aside due to the absence of a specific charge of abetment and lack of evidence proving his connivance or independent demand for the bribe.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involved two government officials, A. Karunanithi (A-1), the Village Administrative Officer, and P. Karunanithi (A-2), the Village Assistant. The complainant approached A-1 to obtain a necessary community certificate for a government job. On two separate occasions, A-1 demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant to process the application. The complainant subsequently lodged a formal complaint with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, leading to the organization of a trap. During the trap, the complainant again met with A-1, who reiterated the demand and instructed A-2 to collect the money. The complainant then handed over the treated currency notes to A-2, who accepted them. Upon a pre-arranged signal, the police team intervened, recovered the money from A-2, and confirmed the transaction through a positive phenolphthalein test on his hands. Based on this evidence, both accused were charged and convicted by the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a decision later upheld by the High Court before being appealed to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began with the registration of FIR Crime No. 8 of 2004 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following investigation, a chargesheet was submitted, and the Special Court in Special Case No. 2 of 2011 convicted both accused, sentencing A-1 to rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Sections 7 and 13, and A-2 to a lesser term for the same offences. Their separate appeals to the High Court were dismissed by a common judgment dated December 5, 2018, which upheld the trial court’s decision. The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court via special leave petitions (SLP (Cri.) No. 9964 of 2019 and SLP (Cri.) No. 7442 of 2019). The Supreme Court granted leave, heard the appeals, and delivered the final judgment on August 12, 2025.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court: Father’s Hearsay Statement Cannot Overturn a Dying Declaration
Court Observation:
The Court observed that for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is an indispensable prerequisite. Regarding A-2, the Court found no evidence that he had made any demand for the bribe himself, nor was there proof of his connivance with A-1 or that he was a habitual offender in such acts. Crucially, the absence of a specific charge of abetment against A-2 was fatal to his conviction, as merely accepting money on another’s direction, without more, does not constitute an offence under the main provisions of the Act. For A-1, the Court found the evidence of demand and constructive acceptance through A-2 to be conclusive. However, considering the petty amount involved, the significant time elapsed since the 2004 incident, and the appellant’s advanced age, the Court held that reducing his sentence to the statutory minimum of one year was a just and proper exercise of its discretion.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal of A-1 by upholding his conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but reducing his sentence to the statutory minimum of one year’s rigorous imprisonment for both offences, considering the petty amount of bribe and the long lapse of time. The appeal of A-2 was allowed entirely, resulting in the full reversal of his conviction and the setting aside of the judgments from the courts below, as the absence of a demand or a specific charge of abetment rendered his conviction legally unsustainable.
Case Details:
Case Title: A. Karunanithi & Anr. vs. The State represented by Inspector of Police CITATION: 2025 INSC 967 Criminal Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 9964 of 2019) Date of Judgement: August 12, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Download The Judgement Here