The Supreme Court has held that a Bribe Through Intermediary cannot establish a public servant’s guilt merely because money changed hands between a complainant and a third person who invoked the public servant’s name. The Court delivered the ruling on September 16 while acquitting former Railway Protection Force (RPF) officer Bharat Raj Meena. The prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Meena demanded or accepted illegal gratification through the intermediary.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh considered the appeal. Justice Kotiswar Singh authored the judgment.
CBI Trap Led To Corruption Proceedings
The case arose from a CBI trap involving RPF employee P.P. Nandakumar. He alleged that ₹10,000 had been demanded to secure a posting.
According to the prosecution, accused Bharat Raj Meena demanded the amount through Constable Anantha Narayanan. The authorities subsequently caught Narayanan accepting the tainted currency.
The trial court convicted Meena under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Meena challenged the conviction before the Kerala High Court. However, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. He then approached the Supreme Court.
Acceptance By Third Person Not Sufficient
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction. It held that a third person’s alleged receipt of tainted money on behalf of an accused does not automatically prove that the accused accepted a bribe.
The Court found a crucial gap in the prosecution’s case. The prosecution failed to establish that the intermediary intended to transfer the money to Meena or that the amount actually reached him.
The Bench observed that the prosecution had, at best, shown that money passed between the complainant and an intermediary who invoked the appellant’s name. That fact alone could not establish the appellant’s acceptance of illegal gratification.
Complete Evidentiary Chain Required
The Supreme Court stressed that the prosecution must establish the complete chain of events when it alleges a Bribe Through Intermediary.
A demand and initial payment to a third person alone will not satisfy this requirement. Cogent evidence must connect the money to the accused. The evidence must show that the amount either reached the accused or was intended for the accused.
The Court relied on its 2015 judgment in R.P.S. Yadav v. CBI while examining this principle.
It concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against Meena beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, his conviction could not stand.
Court Refers To Neeraj Dutta Judgment
The ruling also involved the principles concerning proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In this context, reference was made to Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029.
The Court found that the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that Meena demanded or accepted illegal gratification through the intermediary.
Transaction Involving N.P. Gopi Kumar
The Supreme Court also examined the transaction concerning PW-11 N.P. Gopi Kumar.
The Bench found lingering reasonable doubts regarding the charge against Meena. It held that the prosecution had not established the charge with the degree of certainty required under the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the Court held that Meena’s conviction concerning the transaction involving N.P. Gopi Kumar could not continue under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court held that Meena was entitled to acquittal in that transaction as well.
Supreme Court Allows Appeal
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of Bharat Raj Meena.
The ruling makes clear that proof of payment to an intermediary does not, without sufficient connecting evidence, establish that a public servant demanded or accepted illegal gratification.
