A. KARUNANITHIversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                 [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. 2 of 2011 vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2011
       convicted accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, namely, A. Karunanithi
       and P. Karunanithi respectively under Section 13 and Section 7 of the
       Act. A-1 was awarded three years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under
       Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and 2 years RI
       with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 7 of the Act and in the event
       of non-payment of fine with SI of 3 months each. Similarly, A-2 was
       awarded sentence of 1.5 years of RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under
       Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and 1 year RI
       with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 7 of the Act and in the event
       of default in payment of fine with SI of 3 months each.
4.     The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence was
       challenged by both the accused persons independently by separate
       appeals before the High Court. Both the appeals were decided by
       the High Court by a common judgment and order dated 05.12.2018
       and were dismissed. Thus, the conviction and sentence awarded by
       the trial court was upheld.
5.     The above common judgment and order passed by the High Court
       is under challenge in the present appeals.


1    Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        133

     A. Karunanithi v. The State Represented by Inspector of Police


6.   A-1 was serving as Village Administrative Officer at Selvalur and A-2
     was working as a Village Assistant in the same office. The complainant,
     V. Rengasamy (PW-2) had applied to the Tehsildar for a Community
     Certificate for the purposes of joining Government service. His
     application was returned with an endorsement to approach A-1 for
     a report. When the complainant approached A-1 on 09.11.2004, he
     allegedly demanded Rs. 500/- as a bribe for processing the papers.
     The complainant approached A-1 again on 27.11.2004 whereupon
     he reiterated his demand as aforesaid.
7.   Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Inspector
     of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Corruption Department
     with regard to demand of Rs. 500/- as a bribe by A-1. A trap was
     arranged on 03.12.2004 where currency notes were treated with
     phenolphthalein powder and given to the complainant. After the
     trap was laid, the complainant approached A-1 again, whereupon
     he reiterated his demand for Rs. 500/- as bribe and instructed A-2
     to collect the money. The complainant handed the marked currency
     notes to A-2 who counted the same and kept it, as directed by A-1.
     On the signal of the complainant, Police entered, seized the currency
     notes and conducted the phenolphthalein test on the hands of A-2
     which turned pink, confirming contact with the pre-treated currency
     notes. The seized currency notes were sent for chemical analysis
     which confirmed that they contained phenolphthalein.
8.   It was in this background, the criminal machinery was set into motion
     and an FIR Crime No. 8 of 2004 was registered under the Act. Upon
     investigation, a chargesheet was submitted on 29.06.2006 under
     Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act
     citing 11 witnesses. Thereafter, the trial commenced and both the
     accused were found guilty and sentenced, which judgment and order
     was affirmed by the High Court.
9.   Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued
     for the reduction of sentence to A-1 and for setting aside conviction
     of A-2. He submitted that the High Court failed to consider that the
     age of A-1 is 68 years and that he was involved in a case pertaining
     to a petty amount of Rs.500/- as bribe and that too in the year 2004.
     Therefore, keeping in mind the time elapsed and the small amount
     of the bribe, the sentence imposed upon him is excessive and it
     could be reduced to the statutory minimum sentence of one year.
134                                                         [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


10. In context with A-2, he submitted that his conviction is illegal in the
    absence of evidence that there was demand of illegal gratification
    by him or that he was present when A-1 originally demanded the
    bribe. Therefore, unless there is demand and receipt of the bribe,
    he cannot be convicted.
11. A further argument was raised by him that A-2 cannot be convicted
    for merely accepting the money as there was no specific charge of
    abetment or allegation that A-1 was the abettor of the crime.
12. In defence, counsel for the State had submitted that the case stands
    duly proved against A-1 by the oral evidence of PW-1 (Revenue
    Divisional Officer) and PW-2 (complainant). The Courts have
    repeatedly emphasised that the punishment under the Act ought to
    be deterrent in order to maintain public trust and prevent corruption.
    Therefore, no leniency should be shown to A-1 by reducing the
    punishment.
13. It has also been submitted that offence has also been proved against
    A-2 as he had accepted the illegal gratification on behalf of the A-1. He
    had knowingly accepted the money on behalf of A-1. He was aware
    that it was a bribe money. He had a fair trial, therefore, the absence
    of a formal charge of abetment would not vitiate his conviction.
14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Neeraj Datta vs State (NCT of
    Delhi)2 has held that for recording a conviction under Section 7 and
    Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove
    the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct
    evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary
    evidence or circumstantial evidence. In other words, to convict a
    person under the aforesaid provision demand and acceptance of
    illegal gratification is a sine qua non.
15. We first take up the case of A-2. It is no one’s case that A-2 ever
    demanded any illegal gratification. He undoubtedly accepted the
    money on the directions of A-1 and kept the same with him. So,
    there was no demand of illegal gratification on his part. The demand
    made by A-1 cannot be attributed to A-2 as no evidence was adduced
    which could establish that A-2 was a habitual offender working in aid
    with A-1 or was facilitating A-1 in demanding and receiving illegal


2   (2023) 4 SCC 731
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                         135

     A. Karunanithi v. The State Represented by Inspector of Police


     gratification. Accordingly, in the absence of any allegation or evidence
     that A-2 demanded bribe from the complainant or he was acting in
     connivence with A-1, he cannot be prosecuted for the commission
     of the crime of demanding and receiving illegal gratification.
16. Admittedly, A-2 was not charged with the abetment of the aforesaid
    crime. He had accepted the money on the direction of A-1 only. He
    could have received the money innocently on the direction of A-1
    or he may have received it knowingly. Both the views are possible.
    However, 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 A-2, it cannot be said with any certainty
    that he was an accomplice to the crime. Accordingly, in the absence
    of charge of abetment and the proof of connivance between A-1 and
    A-2, we are of the opinion that A-2 could not have been convicted.
17. In Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad vs. State of Maharashtra
    & ors.3, this Court had an occasion to deal with the case where the
    bribe was demanded by one person and was accepted and recovered
    from a third person. The conviction of the said third person was set
    aside, holding that accepting money on behalf of another person may
    certainly constitute an abetment of an offence, but in the absence
    of a charge of abetment, the person accepting the bribe is not liable
    to be convicted. Accordingly, the Trial Court as well as High Court
    manifestly erred in convicting him for an offence under Section 7
    and 13 of the Act.
18. Now, coming to the conviction of A-1. The evidence on record amply
    proves that he demanded bribe from the complainant not only once
    but twice, and thereafter when the trap was laid. The bribe on his
    behalf was accepted by A-2. The evidence proves that A-2 accepted
    the money on the dictates of A-1. Therefore, both the ingredients of
    demand and receipt stand duly proved against A-1. The evidence in
    this regard of PW-1 and PW-2, despite some minor contradictions
    stand unshaken. Therefore, in our opinion, his conviction as held
    by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is not liable to be
    interfered with.



3   (1998) 2 SCC 357
136                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


19. The submission that the imposition of the punishment of three years
    RI and two years RI respectively for the offences under Section 13(1)
    read with Section 13(2) and under Section 7 of the Act upon A-1 is
    harsh and ought to be reduced to the minimum of one year on the
    basis of the age of the A-1 and on account of the petty amount of
    Rs. 500/- involved in the bribe.
20. There is no dispute to the fact that the offence was allegedly committed
    in the year 2004 and it involved a small amount of Rs. 500/-. A-1
    had suffered on account of the pendency of the trial and appeal
    for all these years. The 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.
21. The argument that the Court cannot show compassion to reduce the
    sentence by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
    is misconceived as the Court is not showing leniency by overriding
    or going beyond the statutory provisions. The reduction of sentence
    is within the scope of the statute which provides for a minimum
    sentence of one year.
22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we confirm the
    conviction of A-1 but reduce his sentence from three and two years
    respectively to the minimum of one year for both the offences as
    prescribed under the Act. The judgment and order of the High
    Court as regards A-1 stands modified accordingly and his appeal
    is allowed in part.
23. The judgment and order of the Trial Court and the High Court insofar
    they convict A-2 are set aside. His appeal stands allowed.

       Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain