SC rejects hostel warden's plea against jail term for bribe

 The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by a warden of a Bengaluru SC/ST students  hostel against a two-year jail term for demanding and accepting Rs 2,000 bribe from an engineering student.

The bench of Justices F M I Kalifullah and Abhay Manohar Sapre found no ground to interfere with the Karnataka High Court as well as the trial court's order awarding the sentence, including Rs 15,000 fine, to L Laxmikanta, held guilty under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“It is a settled principle in law laid down by this court in a number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence then conviction must follow against the accused,” the bench said.

The apex court re-appreciated the evidences and rejected a plea by the petitioner that the matter should be sent back to the High Court which went on to decide his appeal without any counsel appearing on his behalf. 

“The High Court in such circumstances should have appointed any lawyer as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant to argue the case instead of proceeding to decide the appeal ex parte on merits.

Indeed, in our considered opinion, it was the appropriate course which the High Court should have followed for deciding the appeal finally on merits to meet such eventuality,” the bench observed.

However, going through the evidence including the statement of complainant and other witnesses, the court said that the twin requirements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proved  against the appellant.

Laxmikanta, then working as Medical and Engineering College (SC/ST) hostel warden run by the Social Welfare department -- at Banashankari I Stage, Bengaluru, was arrested on December 3, 2001, for taking the money in a trap laid by the Lokayukta police. He demanded the money from the student for admission to the hostel.

The apex court also noted that it was not the appellant's case that there was some previous lawful money transaction between him and the complainant, which prompted the latter to repay the said money.