Summary and Analysis of A. Karunanithi & P. Karunanithi Vs. The State Represented By Inspector Of Police

1. Heading of the Judgment

A. KARUNANITHI & P. KARUNANITHI vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeals arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 9964/2019 & 7442/2019; Decided on August 12, 2025)

Citation: A. KARUNANITHI vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 2025 INSC 967 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets:

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
  Section 7: Taking gratification by a public servant (punishable with min. 6 months, max. 5 years imprisonment).
  Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2): Criminal misconduct by a public servant (punishable with min. 1 year, max. 7 years imprisonment).

• Legal Precedents:
  Neeraj Datta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731:
  "Demand and acceptance" of bribe are essential (sine qua non) for conviction under Sections 7/13.
  Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad vs. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 357:
  Accepting bribe on another’s behalf requires specific charge of abetment for conviction.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants:
  A. Karunanithi (A-1): Village Administrative Officer (VAO).
  P. Karunanithi (A-2): Village Assistant.
  Respondent: State (Prosecution).

• Key Events:
  2004: Complainant (PW-2) sought a community certificate; A-1 demanded ₹500 bribe.
  03.12.2004: Trap laid by Vigilance Police:
  A-1 directed A-2 to collect bribe.
  A-2 accepted treated currency notes (phenolphthalein test positive).
  2011: Special Court convicted both under Sections 7 & 13 PC Act.
  2018: High Court upheld conviction.

• Core Issues:
  Whether A-2’s conviction was valid without proof of demand or abetment charge?
  Whether A-1’s sentence should be reduced?

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Acquittal of P. Karunanithi (A-2)

• No Demand Proven:
  Evidence showed A-1 alone demanded the bribe (twice: 09.11.2004 & 27.11.2004). A-2 never made any demand.

• Absence of Abetment Charge:
  A-2 merely accepted money on A-1’s instructions.
  Citing Mahendra Singh (1998):
  *"Accepting bribe on another’s behalf constitutes abetment, but without a specific charge, conviction under Sections 7/13 PC Act is unsustainable."*
  (Paragraph 17)

• No Evidence of Conspiracy:
  No proof A-2 was a "habitual accomplice" or acted in connivance with A-1.

• Outcome: Conviction set aside; A-2 acquitted.

B. Conviction of A. Karunanithi (A-1) Upheld; Sentence Reduced

• Demand and Acceptance Proven:
  Direct evidence (PW-1, PW-2) proved A-1 demanded bribes repeatedly and orchestrated acceptance via A-2.
  Satisfied Neeraj Datta (2023) requirement of "demand and acceptance."

• Sentence Reduction Grounds:
  Petty Bribe Amount: Only ₹500 involved.
  Long Pendency: Case pending since 2004 (21 years).
  Age of A-1: 68 years at time of appeal.
  Statutory Minimum: Reduced to 1 year imprisonment (minimum under Sections 7 & 13 PC Act).

• Court’s Reasoning:
  "Reducing sentence to statutory minimum is not leniency but a balanced approach considering the trivial amount, prolonged litigation, and advanced age."
  (Paragraph 21)

Final Ruling

1. P. Karunanithi (A-2):
   Acquitted; conviction set aside.

2. A. Karunanithi (A-1):
   Conviction upheld under Sections 7 & 13 PC Act.
   Sentence reduced from 3/2 years to 1 year each (sentences to run concurrently).

Key Takeaway:
This judgment reinforces that:

• Demand of bribe must be proven individually for each accused.

• Abetment charges are mandatory to convict those accepting bribes on others’ behalf.

• Sentence reduction is permissible for petty bribes, elderly accused, and delayed trials, provided statutory minimum is respected.