Skip to main content

Thursday, 21 November 2024 | 04:57 pm

|   Subscribe   |   donation   Support Us    |   donation

Log in
Register


"Justice delayed is justice denied": Public servant can be held guilty under Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence: Supreme Court, 'mere acceptance of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence'

The Court said that the demand and acceptance of bribe can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral or documentary evidence
 |  Satyaagrah  |  Law
Public servant can be held guilty under Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence: Supreme Court
Public servant can be held guilty under Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that in a public servant can be held guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence [Neeraj Dutta vs NCT Delhi].

A Constitution Bench led by Justice S Abdul Nazeer and also comprising Justices V RamasubramanianBR GavaiAS Bopanna, and BV Nagarathna said that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral or documentary evidence.

"In the absence of evidence of complainant (direct or primary), it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability," the Court held.

However, presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance of illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved, the Court clarified.

The Court further said that in order to prove the demand and acceptance the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

- If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without any demand by public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7;

- If public servant makes a demand and giver accepts it, it is a case of obtainment. In both cases, the offer and demand have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue;

- Mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or 13(1).

The bench also held that there was no conflict in its earlier three-judge bench decisions which gave rise to the Constitution bench reference with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d).

The Court had on November 22 reserved its judgment in the matter dealing with the following question of law:

"Whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution?"

The reference to a 5-judge bench arose after a 3-judge bench in August 2019 noted that the law in concern as laid out in its decisions in B Jayaraj vs State of Andhra Pradesh, and P Satyanarayana Murthy vs District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, conflict with its decision in M Narsinga Rao vs State of AP.

Specifically, the issue was regarding the nature and quality of proof required to sustain a conviction for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, when the primary evidence of the complainant was unavailable.

In Satyanaryana Murthy, the Court had held that, in the absence of primary evidence of the complainant due to his death, inferential deductions to sustain a conviction was impermissible in law.

In Narsinga Rao, the top court had sustained convictions despite a lack of primary evidence by relying on other evidence and raising a presumption under the statute.

Several appeals under the PC Act had subsequently been adjourned by the top court citing the pendency of the present reference.

Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu represented the lead appellant in the case.

Additional Solicitor General Jayant Sud appeared for the prosecution.

References:

barandbench.com

Support Us


Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.

While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.

Satyaagrah Razorpay PayPal
 ICICI Bank of SatyaagrahRazorpay Bank of SatyaagrahPayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments

If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:

Pay Satyaagrah

Please share the article on other platforms

To Top

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.


Related Articles

Related Articles




JOIN SATYAAGRAH SOCIAL MEDIA