Non-identification of specific public servant is not fatal to conviction under Section 8, Prevention of Corruption Act.

On February 13, 1996, the Appellant (a private individual/agent) met PW8 at a rationing office and allegedly demanded ₹1,700 to induce public servants to issue a ration card for PW8's friend without required documentation

PW8 lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB). A trap was laid, and the Appellant was apprehended after accepting the tainted currency and handing over the ration card

The trial court convicted the Appellant under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine

The Appellant challenged the conviction, contending that as a private individual, the nexus between the gratification and the inducement of a specific public servant was not established

1. Whether there is any infirmity in the trial court's judgment convicting the Appellant under Section 8 of the PC Act

2. Whether the prosecution must identify a specific, named public servant to sustain a conviction under Section 8 of the PC Act

3. Whether the defense's explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was sufficient to rebut the prosecution's case

The court applied Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (prior to its amendment), which criminalizes the acceptance of gratification by any person to induce a public servant—whether named or otherwise—by corrupt or illegal means to perform an official act

The court relied on Babji v. State of A.P. (2018) to elucidate the essential ingredients of Section 8

It further clarified that under the statutory language "public servant, whether named or otherwise," the identity of a specific official is not a sine qua non for conviction

Regarding the appreciation of evidence, the court applied the principle that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single reliable witness (PW8) if corroborated by circumstances such as recovery (PW7/PW12)

The court found that the prosecution successfully proved both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through the consistent testimonies of the complainant (PW8) and the panch witness (PW7)

The court rejected the Appellant’s defense that the money was a "service charge" for standing in a queue, noting it was highly improbable that a person would pay ₹1,700—over eight times the alleged demanded amount of ₹200—for such a minor service

Crucially, the court held that Section 8 is triggered when an accused represents they have "contacts" or "connections" to influence public servants, regardless of whether a specific official is identified or if the accused actually interacts with one

The recovery of tainted notes and the positive sodium carbonate test further corroborated the illegal transaction

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge

The court specifically ruled that the non-identification of a particular public servant does not weaken the case because the statute expressly covers inducements aimed at unnamed officials

The Appellant's explanation was deemed "not probable or believable" in light of the evidence