Corruption Charges and Burden of Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Bribery Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 9, 2018, addressed an important issue concerning corruption allegations and the burden of proof under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case, Babji vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, involved the appellant’s conviction under Section 8 of the Act for allegedly demanding and receiving an illegal gratification to influence a public servant. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that the prosecution had failed to establish crucial elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

The case revolved around an alleged bribery scheme where the appellant, Babji, was accused of demanding Rs. 2,100 from a passenger to secure a confirmed airline ticket. The trial court convicted him based on witness testimony, and the High Court upheld the conviction. However, the Supreme Court found that the evidence was insufficient to meet the legal threshold for proving an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution’s case was built on the complaint of PW-4, Sumeet Asthana, who alleged that he approached the Indian Airlines office for a ticket but was placed on a waiting list. An unknown airline employee reportedly directed him to the appellant, Babji, who worked for M/s Varun Movies. Babji allegedly demanded Rs. 2,100 for the ticket, which was Rs. 454 above the actual fare. Following this, PW-4 lodged a complaint, leading to a vigilance report and subsequent prosecution.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant argued that the prosecution had failed to prove key elements of the offense. The defense highlighted the following points:

• The prosecution did not establish whether Babji had direct contact with any public servant to influence the ticket confirmation.
• The evidence was vague and did not specify for whom the money was allegedly collected.
• The Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof that a person received a bribe to induce a public servant, but this essential link was missing in the prosecution’s case.

Respondent’s Arguments

The prosecution contended that Babji’s demand for extra money was itself an act of corruption. They argued that middlemen facilitating bribes should not be allowed to escape liability simply because they do not directly hold public office. The prosecution relied on witness testimony, including statements from PW-2 and PW-4, to establish Babji’s role in securing confirmed tickets for a bribe.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements required under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court noted:

“In order to constitute an offense under Section 8 of the Act, three things are essential. In the first place, there must have been the solicitation or receipt of the gratification. Secondly, such gratification must have been asked for or paid as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant to do an act or do a favor or render some service as stated under Section 8 of the Act.”

The Court found that while the prosecution alleged that Babji received money, it did not provide conclusive evidence linking him to a public servant or proving that the money was intended to bribe an airline official.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ruled:

“In the absence of convincing evidence to show that the appellant had received the money from PW-4 to induce a public servant to get the confirmation of the ticket, the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of the PC Act cannot be sustained.”

The Court acquitted the appellant and discharged his bail bonds.

Conclusion

The ruling in Babji vs. State of Andhra Pradesh underscores the importance of proving all elements of a corruption offense beyond a reasonable doubt. It clarifies that an individual can only be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act if there is clear evidence linking them to a public servant and showing that money was solicited specifically to influence official action. This judgment strengthens the requirement for robust evidence in corruption trials, ensuring that convictions are based on clear and direct proof rather than mere suspicion.

Petitioner Name: Babji.
Respondent Name: State of Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Hyderabad, India.
Judgment Date: 09-08-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Babji vs State of Andhra Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Money Laundering Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category