LexA. KARUNANITHI versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 130 : 2025 INSC 967 A. Karunanithi v. The State Represented by Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 3482 of 2025) 12 August 2025 [Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.13 and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(d), 13(2), 7 – Illegal gratification – Demand and accetance – Case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification against the Village Administrative Officer and Village Assistant working in the same office, by the complainant – Trap laid, the Village Administrative Officer demanded Rs.500/- as bribe and instructed the Village Assistant to collect the money, complainant handed the marked currency notes to Village Assistant and the police seized the currency notes and conducted the phenolphthalein test on the hands of Village Assistant which turned pink – Conviction and sentence of the Village Administrative Officer and Village Assistant u/ss.13(1)(d), 13(2), 7 by the courts below – Interference: Held: To convict a person u/ss.13(1)(d), 13(2), 7 of the 1988 Act, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non – In the absence of any allegation or evidence that Village Assistant demanded bribe from the complainant or he was acting in connivance with Village Administrative Officer, he cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the crime of demanding and receiving illegal gratification – Furthermore, as no evidence was adduced to prove that both of them have connived to demand and accept the bribe, even if a fair trial may have been given to the Village Assistant, it cannot be said with any certainty that he was an accomplice to the crime – In the absence of charge of abetment * Author [2025] 9 S.C.R. 131 A. Karunanithi v. The State Represented by Inspector of Police and the proof of connivance between Village Administrative Officer and Village Assistant, the Village Assistant could not have been convicted – Court below manifestly erred in convicting him – As regards, the conviction of Village Administrative Officer, both the ingredients of demand and receipt stand duly proved against him – His conviction not to be interfered with – However, the offence was allegedly committed in the year 2004 and it involved a small amount of Rs.500/-, and the Village Administrative Officer suffered on account of the pendency of the trial and appeal for all these years – Long time that has elapsed during the trial and the appeals coupled with the fact that the amount involved is small, it appears just and proper to award the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act – Reduction of sentence is within the scope of the statute which provides for a minimum sentence of one year – Conviction of Village Administrative Officer upheld, however the sentence reduced. [Paras 15, 16, 18-22] Case Law Cited Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2022] 5 SCR 104 : (2023) 4 SCC 731; Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad v. State of Maharashtra & ors. [1997] Supp. 6 SCR 465 : (1998) 2 SCC 357 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Bribe for processing papers; Trap arranged; Demand of illegal gratification; Marked currency notes; Phenolphthalein powder; Phenolphthalein test; Reduction of sentence; Absence of charge of abetment; Proof of connivance; Article 142 of the Constitution. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3482 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLAMD No. 361 of 2011 With: Criminal Appeal No. 3483 of 2025 132 [2025] 9 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.p. Parthiban, Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Ankur Prakash, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K, Shivansh Sharma. Advs. for the Respondent: Dr. Joseph Aristotle S, Sr. Adv., Sabarish Subramanian. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881 in Special Case No.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.