D. Velayutham v. State rep. by Inspector of Police
Background
Two Central Excise officers (a Superintendent and his subordinate Inspector) were convicted of demanding and accepting a bribe from a rubber-slab manufacturer in exchange for withdrawing an excise demand notice. The subordinate officer was caught red-handed in a police trap (confirmed by the phenolphthalein/sodium-carbonate test), while the senior officer was absent at the moment of the trap, having left to attend to his ailing wife, and denied any involvement. The Madras High Court had partly allowed their appeals, upholding the Inspector's conviction while altering sentences, prompting both officers to appeal further to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the subordinate officer's conviction was unproblematic since he was caught with the tainted money and admitted receiving it, even if claiming it was only on his superior's behalf. For the absent senior officer, the Court applied the doctrine of "constructive receipt", where multiple officials jointly demand a bribe but only one physically receives it, the one who evades the trap can still be convicted based on corroborating circumstantial evidence. The Court found the complainant's testimony credible (he had no motive to falsely implicate the senior officer, and could not have predicted his absence), and that the officer's alibi (a sudden recall to the head office) was unsupported by any independent evidence. Both appeals were dismissed, the officers' bail was cancelled, and they were directed to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of their sentences.
Lesson Learnt
In joint bribery demands, a corrupt official cannot escape conviction merely by being physically absent when a trap is sprung on a co-accused: if the surrounding evidence shows the money was received as "constructive receipt" on his behalf, he remains equally criminally liable.