Prevention Of Corruption Act | Public Servant Asking Bribe For Subordinates Liable; Demand Need Not Be Direct : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant need not personally demand or receive a bribe to attract liability under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Holding that the provision covers attempts to obtain an undue advantage through third parties and for the benefit of another person, the Court restored a corruption FIR against a Karnataka Police Sub-Inspector accused of seeking money through subordinate officials

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment that had quashed an FIR against a Police Sub-Inspector accused of indirectly seeking a bribe through his subordinates.

In this case, the Respondent 1, Rangayya, a sub-inspector at the Siruguppa police station in Karnataka, along with other police officers, threatened the complainant for illegally selling ration rice. They seized his car, and a case was registered against the complainant. Later, through a third person, a bribe of Rs. 50,000 was demanded from the complainant on the instruction of Respondent 1. Respondent 1 also allegedly told the complainant that he should 'do something for the other police officials or 'make those boys happy'.

Based on the complaint, the Karnataka Lokayukta Police registered an FIR under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the PSI, a constable and a private individual. However, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR, holding that there was neither a direct demand nor acceptance of money by the PSI.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh held that the High Court failed to interpret Section 7(a) read with Explanation 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which takes care of a situation where a public servant accepts a bribe through another person by taking the help of another public servant.

"The Respondent No. 1's implicit yet unmistakable direction to the Complainant to provide illegal gratification to his subordinate police officials as disclosed in the records thus falls squarely within the scope of “attempt to obtain” an “undue advantage” “for another person,” as contemplated by Explanation 2(i) to Section 7 of the PC Act. The fact that the Respondent No. 1 may not personally have received or even intended to receive any part of the illegal gratification is entirely immaterial to the establishment of the offence at the stage of prima facie inquiry, by reason of the express statutory language of Explanation 2 to Section 7 of the PC Act."

It said that the actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be prosecuted under the PC Act, and therefore, those public servants who do not take bribes directly but through middlemen are equally held liable under the Act.

"As even an attempt to obtain an undue advantage, made through the specific demand attributed to Respondent No. 1 to the effect that the Complainant should 'Do something for those boys' falls prima facie within the ambit of Section 7(a) of the PC Act read with Explanation 2 thereto, inasmuch as Section 7, expressly includes the 'attempt to obtain' an undue advantage and is not confined to actual obtainment, and Explanation 2 makes it clear that it is immaterial whether the advantage is sought for another person or directly or through a third party."

The judgment authored by Justice NK Singh stated that these allegations very well constitute a "veiled demand" for illegal gratification or undue advantage for his associates. The Court said the High Court made a wrong emphasis on the fact that the act of bribery by a public servant must be 'direct, personal and that the demand must be expressed for himself'.

"The High Court appears to have imported a requirement of a direct, personal, and express demand by the public servant himself by not taking into consideration Explanation 2, a standard not warranted by the broad statutory language. The PC Act does not countenance any such straitjacketed formulation limiting to acts of demand and acceptance of bribe by the official himself as explained by expansive provision of Explanation 2. It can be for obtaining the undue advantage “for another person” also."

It pointed out that Explanation 2 added to Section 7 of the PC Act is meant to countenance a situation where a bribe is obtained through subordinates who are also public servants, or a situation of indirect corruption.

The Supreme Court said if the High Court's narrow interpretation of Section 7 is allowed, senior public officials would orchestrate and direct subordinate persons to obtain bribes on their behalf: "The interpretation adopted by the High Court, if permitted to stand, would limit the broad scope of Section 7 read with Explanation 2, and would create a pernicious loophole in the anti-corruption law by permitting senior public officials to orchestrate and direct the collection of illegal gratification through their public servant subordinates and park the benefits in the account of the “another person” for whose benefit the public servant intends, while maintaining personal deniability. Such a construction would subvert the manifest purpose and policy of the PC Act and render the Explanation 2 redundant, and thus, cannot be countenanced."

Holding that the allegations in the complaint and FIR prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court restored the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the PSI, leaving all questions relating to guilt or innocence to be determined during trial.

Case Details: THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE v. SRI K. RANGAYYA & ANR|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.5245 of 2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Click Here To Read Order