Bribe Demand Through Third Party Attracts Section 7 PC Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a public servant can be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 even if the bribe was never demanded or received by the officer personally. In State by Lokayukta Police v. K. Rangayya, 2026 INSC 574, the Court held that a demand for an undue advantage routed through a third party, or made for the benefit of another person, squarely falls within the offence. The judgment restores a corruption case against a police sub-inspector that the Karnataka High Court had quashed.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an FIR registered by the Lokayukta Police in Karnataka against a police sub-inspector. According to the complaint, the officer did not ask for money himself. Instead, he allegedly directed the complainant to a private individual, who then demanded a sum of Rs 50,000 on the officer's behalf. The Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that there was no direct demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, which had traditionally been treated as the foundation of an offence under Section 7.

The State challenged the quashing before the Supreme Court, arguing that the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act deliberately widened the language of Section 7 to cover indirect solicitation.

What the Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the FIR. The Court anchored its reasoning in Explanation 2 to Section 7, which clarifies that the expressions used in the provision cover the obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage directly or through a third party. The Court observed that it is entirely immaterial whether the public servant solicits the advantage himself or remains in the background while another person collects it.

Two further points stand out in the ruling. First, the statute does not confine the beneficiary of the corruption to the accused officer alone; an advantage sought for another person is equally covered. Second, the offence is complete on a mere attempt to obtain an undue advantage. Actual physical exchange or receipt of the bribe is not a precondition for prosecution. On the facts, the Court found that the officer's veiled direction to the complainant to do something for those associated with him amounted to a prima facie solicitation.

Why This Judgment Matters

Investigating agencies have often struggled with cases where the public servant insulates himself by using middlemen, subordinates or family members to collect bribes. Defence arguments built on the absence of a direct demand have led to acquittals and quashing of cases at the threshold. This ruling makes it clear that the layered structure of a bribe demand does not break the chain of criminal liability. A public servant who acts as the main instrumentality behind an indirect demand can be brought to trial.

The decision also reinforces the legislative intent behind the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which restructured Section 7 and introduced the language on third-party solicitation. Courts examining quashing petitions will now have to assess the substance of the transaction rather than insisting on proof of a face-to-face demand at the FIR stage.

What It Does Not Change

The judgment operates at the stage of investigation and trial, not conviction. The prosecution must still prove the demand, the link between the public servant and the third party, and the attempt to obtain an undue advantage beyond reasonable doubt at trial. Established case law requiring proof of demand and acceptance for a conviction under Section 7 continues to apply; the ruling clarifies what counts as a demand, not the standard of proof.

Practical Implications for Citizens and Organisations

For citizens who face indirect bribe demands, the ruling is empowering. A demand conveyed through an agent, a tout stationed outside an office, or a subordinate acting at the instance of a senior officer can all be reported to the jurisdictional anti-corruption agency, such as the State Lokayukta, the Anti-Corruption Bureau or the Central Bureau of Investigation, depending on the public servant involved. Complainants should preserve whatever record of the demand exists, including call records, messages and the identity of the intermediary, since the connection between the middleman and the public servant becomes the central question at trial.

For companies, the decision is a reminder that anti-bribery compliance cannot stop at refusing direct payments to officials. Payments routed through consultants, liaison agents and facilitators carry the same legal character if they ultimately constitute an undue advantage connected to a public servant's functions, and corporate internal controls should treat third-party intermediaries as the highest-risk channel.

Key Takeaways

A bribe demand made through a middleman, subordinate or any third party can attract Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The undue advantage need not benefit the public servant personally; an advantage for another person is covered. A mere attempt to obtain an undue advantage is an offence, and actual receipt of money is not required for prosecution. Public servants facing allegations of indirect solicitation cannot rely on the absence of a direct demand to seek quashing of the FIR at the threshold.