Public servant need not personally accept bribe to be guilty: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has clarified that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a public servant can be held guilty of demanding or attempting to obtain a bribe even if the undue advantage is not for themselves, but for another person, including subordinates.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh ruled that Section 7 of the Act, read with Explanation 2(i), covers cases where a public servant abuses his position or uses his influence over another public servant to secure illegal gratification for someone else.

“It is not necessary that the public servant who has been charged of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act has to obtain the undue benefit for himself, but it also covers cases where he does the offensive act for obtaining undue advantages for ‘another person’,” the bench observed.

The court explained that the offence can be committed directly by the public servant or through another public servant by exercising personal influence.

A public servant can remain in the background while orchestrating the bribe through subordinates and still be liable, it observed.

The May 26, 2026 ruling came while allowing an appeal by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police against a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed an FIR against K Rangayya, a Police Sub-Inspector posted at Siruguppa Police Station in Ballari district.

The appeal was argued by advocate Nishanth Patil.

The high court had quashed the FIR registered in June 2023, noting that Rangayya had neither made a direct demand nor personally accepted any bribe money. 

The top court held that the high court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by conducting a mini-trial and examining evidence such as trap proceedings, phenolphthalein test results, and departmental enquiries — all matters to be decided during trial.

The apex court said the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie case. It was alleged that Rangayya directed the complainant to “do something for the other police officials” or “make those boys happy,” which was followed by a demand of Rs 5,000 by his subordinate.

The bench held that such a direction amounted to a veiled demand for illegal gratification for his subordinates, squarely falling within the ambit of Section 7 read with Explanation 2.

“The PC Act does not countenance any such straitjacketed formulation limiting to acts of demand and acceptance of bribe by the official himself,” the court said, stressing that Explanation 2 was introduced to cover indirect forms of corruption.

The court warned that accepting the High Court’s narrow interpretation would create a dangerous loophole, allowing senior officials to escape liability by routing bribes through juniors while maintaining deniability.

It also rejected Rangayya’s contentions regarding the exoneration of subordinates in departmental proceedings and claims of mala fide FIR, saying these were matters for trial.

Setting aside the highcCourt’s order, the court restored the FIR and directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.