A. Karunanithi vs The State Represented by Inspector of Police

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 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]