Bribe-Giving And Bribe-Taking Distinction
I. Introduction
Bribery is a corrupt practice involving offering or accepting undue advantage to influence the actions of a public official or any person in position of trust. The Indian legal system criminalizes both bribe-giving and bribe-taking, but the two have distinct legal and factual elements.
Bribe-Giving: The act of offering or promising a bribe.
Bribe-Taking: The act of accepting or agreeing to accept a bribe.
Both are offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and certain sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
II. Legal Provisions
| Offence | Relevant Section(s) | Brief Description |
|---|---|---|
| Bribe-Giving | Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), Sections 171B IPC | Offering or promising a bribe to a public servant to induce him to do/omit an act. |
| Bribe-Taking | Sections 7 & 8, PCA, Sections 161 & 162 IPC | Accepting or agreeing to accept a bribe or illegally obtaining gratification by a public servant. |
III. Distinction Between Bribe-Giving and Bribe-Taking
| Aspect | Bribe-Giving | Bribe-Taking |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Offence | Active offer or promise to induce official action. | Active acceptance or agreement to receive gratification. |
| Offender | Usually the person offering the bribe (private person, contractor, agent). | Public servant or person in fiduciary position receiving gratification. |
| Proof Required | Evidence that bribe was offered or promised. | Evidence of acceptance, receipt, or agreement to receive bribe. |
| Criminal Liability | Section 7 PCA penalizes bribe-giving; IPC Section 171B applies. | Section 7 and 8 PCA penalizes bribe-taking; IPC Sections 161/162 also relevant. |
| Punishment | Imprisonment and fine. | Imprisonment, fine, and forfeiture of property. |
IV. Important Case Laws
1. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1185
Facts:
The case dealt with whether the giver and taker of bribe are equally culpable and whether conviction can be independent for both.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that both bribe-giver and taker are liable independently. The offence committed by the bribe-giver is offering or promising gratification, while the bribe-taker commits offence by accepting or agreeing to accept gratification.
Key Principle:
Bribe-giving and bribe-taking are two distinct offences and punishment can be awarded separately.
2. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
Facts:
Involved allegations of bribe-taking by public officials.
Judgment:
The Court held that bribe-taking offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act require proof that the accused was a public servant and that gratification was accepted or agreed to be accepted as a motive or reward for official act.
Key Principle:
Bribe-taking involves mens rea of acceptance of gratification by a public servant.
3. R.K. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 415
Facts:
Addressed the difference between bribe-giving and offering as a gift.
Judgment:
Supreme Court clarified that the intention behind the offering matters. An innocent gift without any corrupt intent is not bribe-giving. The offence requires that the offer or promise be made to induce the public servant to do or omit an official act.
Key Principle:
Intention to induce official action is necessary to constitute bribe-giving.
4. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rajendra Kumar, (2000) 7 SCC 691
Facts:
Public servant was accused of accepting gratification.
Judgment:
Court held that for bribe-taking, it is not necessary that the gratification was actually accepted; agreement or promise to accept also amounts to offence.
Key Principle:
Agreement to accept bribe is punishable even if no actual acceptance occurs.
5. S. Ramanatha Aiyar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1975 SC 1501
Facts:
Accused was charged for demanding and accepting bribe.
Judgment:
The Court held that mere demand does not constitute bribe-taking unless followed by acceptance or agreement. Similarly, mere offer does not constitute bribe-giving unless it is made to induce official act.
Key Principle:
Both demand and offer must be linked with inducement to official act.
6. State of Punjab v. Gurcharan Singh, AIR 1980 SC 1575
Facts:
The accused public servant was accused of receiving illegal gratification.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that the receiver’s knowledge and consent are essential for the offence of bribe-taking. Passive receipt without corrupt intent is not punishable.
Key Principle:
Active consent or agreement is essential for bribe-taking conviction.
7. Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2010) 10 SCC 1
Facts:
The case dealt with the parameters of proving bribe-taking under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of independent corroborative evidence to prove bribe-taking, beyond just the testimony of the bribe-giver.
Key Principle:
Corroboration is crucial for conviction in bribe-taking cases to prevent misuse of law.
V. Summary Table: Offences & Key Points
| Offence | Offender | Proof Required | Section | Punishment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bribe-Giving | Any person offering/promise bribe | Evidence of offer or promise with corrupt intent | Section 7 PCA, Section 171B IPC | Imprisonment + Fine |
| Bribe-Taking | Public servant accepting or agreeing to accept | Proof of acceptance/agreement + corrupt intent | Sections 7, 8 PCA; Sections 161, 162 IPC | Imprisonment + Fine + Forfeiture |
VI. Conclusion
Bribe-Giving and Bribe-Taking are distinct but related offences.
Bribe-giving involves offer or promise to induce official action.
Bribe-taking involves acceptance or agreement to receive gratification by a public servant.
Both offences require corrupt intent and are punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
Courts emphasize mens rea, corroboration, and independent proof to avoid wrongful convictions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments