The Supreme Court has acquitted a former Divisional Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection Force in two corruption cases, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money collected by subordinate officials was accepted or obtained by him as illegal gratification.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh has observed that the prosecution must establish through reliable evidence that the intermediary acted under the authority, direction or for the benefit of the accused public servant. Mere receipt of money by a third person cannot automatically fasten criminal liability upon the public servant.
Buy Now: E-Magzine On Landmark Supreme Court Judgements Under Limitation Act Till 2025 : PART-1
The Court held that although the prosecution claimed that bribe money had been collected by intermediaries using the appellant’s name, the evidence did not reliably establish that the money reached, or was intended to reach, the appellant.
“Mere receipt of money by a third person cannot automatically result in criminal liability being imputed to a public servant,” the Court observed.
The appeals arose from a CBI investigation initiated through FIR No. RC19(A)/2005/KER/CBI, registered on August 4, 2005 by the Anti-Corruption Branch, Kochi.
The appellant was serving as Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Palakkad Division. The prosecution alleged that he had evolved a system under which RPF personnel seeking favourable transfers, postings or other service-related benefits were required to pay illegal gratification through subordinate officers.
According to the prosecution, Constable Anantha Narayanan and Head Constable Abdul Gafoor acted as intermediaries. It was alleged that they collected amounts ranging from ₹5,000 to ₹13,000 from RPF personnel for transfers, retention at preferred stations and other favourable postings.
CBI Trap Based on Clerk’s Complaint
The investigation began after P.P. Nandakumar, a junior clerk attached to the Personnel Branch of the RPF at Palakkad, complained that he had been asked to pay ₹10,000 for securing a posting at the office of the Divisional Security Commissioner.
The prosecution alleged that the demand was conveyed through Anantha Narayanan. The amount was allegedly to be paid in two instalments of ₹5,000 each.
The CBI organised a trap on August 4, 2005. During the operation, Anantha Narayanan was apprehended while accepting ₹5,000 from Nandakumar. The investigating agency treated him as the person through whom the appellant had demanded and accepted the gratification.
A wider investigation subsequently led the CBI to allege 12 separate instances of illegal gratification. Anantha Narayanan and Abdul Gafoor, who were initially arrayed as accused, were later granted pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and examined as approver witnesses.
The present appeals concerned two prosecutions—C.C. No. 2 of 2014 and C.C. No. 3 of 2015.
In the first case, the Special CBI Court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1 lakh.
The second case concerned three alleged transactions involving RPF personnel T.V. Rajan, C.K. Aravindan and N.P. Gopi Kumar. Of these, the conviction relating to Gopi Kumar was ultimately affirmed by the Kerala High Court.
Demand and Acceptance Are Essential Ingredients
The Supreme Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification constitutes the foundation of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Criminality does not arise merely because money changed hands, the Court said. The prosecution must establish that the public servant demanded, accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for performing or facilitating an official act.
Referring to its earlier decisions, including C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police and the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), the Court said mere recovery of tainted currency cannot sustain a conviction without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance.
The Court clarified that demand and acceptance can be proved through circumstantial evidence. However, an inference of guilt can be drawn only when the established circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the accused or any other reasonable hypothesis.
Bribe Can Be Collected Through an Intermediary
The Bench clarified that the law does not require a public servant to personally receive bribe money in every case. Acceptance through an intermediary acting on behalf of the public servant may satisfy the statutory requirement.
A senior official cannot escape liability merely by arranging the collection of illegal gratification through subordinate officers, the Court said.
However, before criminal liability can be imposed, the prosecution must prove that the intermediary acted under the accused’s authority or direction, or for the accused’s benefit. The demand conveyed by the intermediary must also be shown to be attributable to the accused.
The mere fact that the intermediary was a subordinate or claimed to be close to the accused would not be sufficient to establish the necessary nexus.
Approver Evidence Requires Careful Scrutiny
The Court also examined the evidentiary value of testimony given by persons who were originally accused and subsequently granted pardon.
Although Section 133 of the Evidence Act permits a conviction based on accomplice testimony, Illustration (b) to Section 114 embodies a rule of prudence under which such evidence ordinarily requires corroboration in material particulars.
An approver who participated in the alleged offence and later obtained pardon has a strong incentive to minimise his own culpability and shift responsibility to others, the Court noted.
In corruption cases involving intermediaries, courts must therefore examine the evidence with great care and look for independent corroboration connecting the public servant with the offence.
The Court emphasised that the admissibility of approver evidence and its credibility are separate matters. The fact that such testimony is legally admissible does not by itself make it safe to act upon.
Trap Ended Before Money Could Allegedly Reach Officer
In the transaction involving Nandakumar, the tainted money was recovered from Anantha Narayanan and not from the appellant.
The prosecution claimed that the appellant had instructed Nandakumar to hand over the money to Anantha Narayanan, who would then deliver it at the appellant’s residence.
The Supreme Court found material inconsistencies in the versions given by Nandakumar and the intermediary. Anantha Narayanan had earlier told Nandakumar to give the money directly to the appellant. However, when the complainant allegedly offered the money to the appellant in his office, the appellant purportedly instructed him to hand it to the intermediary.
The Court found the alleged route of the money unusual. According to the prosecution, the appellant made the demand personally but did not accept the money when it was offered directly and privately. Instead, he allegedly directed that it be passed through the intermediary and delivered later at his residence.
The Court also questioned why the CBI stopped the trap immediately after the money was handed to Anantha Narayanan.
If the prosecution’s case was that the intermediary was taking the money to the appellant’s residence, the CBI could have maintained surveillance and allowed the alleged chain of delivery to continue, the Bench observed. That would have provided direct evidence as to whether the money was actually intended for the appellant.
By ending the operation at the point of recovery from the intermediary, the CBI established, at the highest, only the unauthorised receipt of money by the intermediary.
The Court termed this a serious lacuna and observed that the investigating agency’s “impatience” in concluding the trap would operate to the appellant’s benefit.
Appellant Had No Authority Over Posting
The Court also noted that the posting for which Nandakumar allegedly paid the bribe was not within the appellant’s authority.
Nandakumar had already been posted to the office of the Divisional Security Commissioner through an order issued by the competent personnel authority. The evidence of the railway officers responsible for the posting indicated that the appellant neither had authority over the posting nor played any role in influencing it.
The prosecution also failed to explain whether its case was that the appellant had demanded money by making false representations or assurances in respect of an official act over which he had no authority.
This circumstance required the evidence of the complainant and the intermediary to be scrutinised particularly carefully, the Court said.
Alternative Possibility Not Excluded
The Bench found that the prosecution failed to exclude the reasonable possibility that Anantha Narayanan had collected and retained the money independently while using the appellant’s name.
The intermediary was also found carrying amounts connected with other alleged transactions, including one that did not ultimately survive judicial scrutiny. This lent support to the alternative possibility that he may have dealt with the money independently and without the appellant’s knowledge.
The testimony of the complainant established the alleged demand, while the trap witness and phenolphthalein test established that the intermediary collected the money. However, none of this independently corroborated the critical allegation that the amount was intended to be delivered to the appellant’s residence.
The Court held that it could not speculate that the appellant would have eventually received the money if the trap had not intervened.
Section 20 Presumption Not Attracted
The Supreme Court held that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be invoked.
The presumption arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational fact that the accused public servant accepted or obtained the gratification. In the present case, acceptance or obtainment by the appellant remained unproved.
“The prosecution has, at its best, established that money changed hands between a complainant and an intermediary who invoked the appellant’s name,” the Court observed.
That by itself could not constitute proof that the appellant accepted the bribe.
Second Transaction Also Found Doubtful
The surviving transaction in the second appeal concerned an allegation by N.P. Gopi Kumar that the appellant summoned him to his residence and accepted ₹3,000 through Abdul Gafoor.
Gopi Kumar claimed that the appellant asked whether he had “forgotten him” after obtaining his transfer. The Court noted that the appellant’s alleged words did not expressly refer to money. It was the witness’s interpretation, coupled with the intermediary’s statement, that connected the remark with an alleged bribe.
The Court found that the allegation lacked independent corroboration. The inspector who allegedly called Gopi Kumar at the appellant’s instance was not examined. No call records, movement register, muster roll or duty record was produced to establish the appellant’s presence at his residence.
There was also no recovery of money from the appellant or his residence.
Significantly, the appellant’s monthly diary showed that he had left Palakkad on July 29, 2005 and returned only on the night of July 31. The sole date attributed to the alleged transaction was July 30, which fell within the period when the appellant was shown to be away.
The prosecution did not reconcile this documentary evidence with its allegation.
The Court consequently held that the foundational facts necessary to prove demand and acceptance had not been established. The evidence consisted primarily of an approver and the alleged bribe giver corroborating each other, without support from any independent witness, recovery or documentary material.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: AO Can’t Reopen Income-Tax Settlement Commission’s Final Order Through Reassessment: Supreme Court
