Liability For Bribery Holds Even If Public Servant Receives Undue Advantage Through Intermediary: Madhya Pradesh HC

The petitioner, a Narcotics Inspector working for the Central Bureau of Narcotics in Mandsaur, was charged under Section 61(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (BNS), which pertains to criminal conspiracy, as well as Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which addresses offenses committed by public servants related to bribery.

A Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar ruled, “…it is not necessary that a person must receive the amount/undue advantage in his hands only, and there may be instances that he may obtain the same through some other person, and in such circumstances, he cannot avoid his liability and cannot get away just by saying that he was not caught red handed.”

The Court said that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary, and thus anticipatory bail was not warranted. The Court referred to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which stipulates that a public servant who accepts or facilitates the acceptance of a bribe, either directly or through an intermediary, can be held criminally liable.

The Court further clarified that it was irrelevant whether the public servant physically received the bribe themselves or had it received by someone else on their behalf; in either case, they would still be accountable for the offense.

Advocate Abhishek Rathore appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Manoj Kumar Dwivedi appeared for the respondent.

The defense counsel argued that the applicant was not present at the scene of the transaction and that no money was directly recovered from him. They claimed that the applicant was falsely implicated in the case and emphasized that the complainant had already been granted the opium license prior to the alleged bribery incident. Furthermore, the defense asserted that the applicant did not have the authority to grant such licenses.

In response, the prosecution's counsel contended that the case involved serious corruption, as evidenced by the significant bribe demanded and the fact that the co-accused had been apprehended with the bribe money. Additionally, it was highlighted that these individuals had admitted to acting on the instructions of the applicant. A voice recording transcript was also presented, in which the applicant was allegedly heard demanding the bribe.

The Court observed, “…in a serious case of bribe like the present one where a Narcotic Inspector himself is involved in demanding and taking huge bribe through another person to facilitate grant of opium licence, this court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant,”

Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Cause Title: Abhishek v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Click here to read/download Order