In the case of A. Karunanithi and P. Karunanithi v. The State, the Supreme Court of India addressed appeals against a High Court decision that upheld the conviction of two individuals, A-1 and A-2, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

A-1, A. Karunanithi, a Village Administrative Officer, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant for processing a Community Certificate application. A trap was set, and A-1 instructed A-2, P. Karunanithi, a Village Assistant, to collect the bribe money. A-2 accepted the money, and a phenolphthalein test confirmed his contact with the pre-treated currency notes. Both were convicted by the trial court, and their conviction was affirmed by the High Court.

The Supreme Court examined the cases of both accused separately.

The court found that there was no evidence to prove that A-2 had ever demanded a bribe. While he did accept the money, it was on the direct instruction of A-1. The court noted that in the absence of a specific charge of abetment or evidence of a connivance between A-1 and A-2, A-2 could not be convicted. The court cited a previous judgment, Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad v. State of Maharashtra, which established that accepting money on behalf of another may constitute abetment, but a conviction is not possible without the specific charge. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction of A-2, allowing his appeal.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of A-1, confirming that the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses proved both the demand and receipt of the illegal gratification. The bribe was accepted on his behalf by A-2, which did not negate his culpability.

However, regarding the sentence, the court considered several factors:

The court deemed the sentence of three years and two years of rigorous imprisonment to be excessive given the circumstances. It concluded that reducing the sentence to the statutory minimum of one year would be just and proper. The court clarified that this reduction was within the scope of the statute and not an exercise of undue compassion.