The Supreme Court reserved its decision on Tuesday on whether it is permissible to draw inferential deductions of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution in the absence of evidence of the complainant or direct or primary evidence of demand for illegal gratification. 

"It corruption strikes at the root of national interest and these stringent provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act should be given its full meaning," Aishwarya Bhati, the Center's additional solicitor general, told a bench of justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian, and BV Nagarathna.

First, a division bench referred the case to a larger bench after observing that the insistence on direct proof or primary evidence for proving the demand may not be consistent with the view taken in many judgments in which, despite the absence of primary evidence from the complainant, the Apex Court upheld the accused's conviction by relying on other evidence and raising a presumption under the statute. Later, the three-judge bench that referred the current case to the Constitution Bench noted:

"We note that two three-judge benches of this Court, in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another are in conflict with an earlier three-judge bench decision of this Court in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., regarding the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the primary evidence of the complainant is unavailable"

According to the bench, the 2015 decision referred to acquittal when there was no other evidence. "As constitution bench, we will lay down the principle of law. We will say that if evidence of complainant is not there, this will not mean the end of the road. You can still proceed ahead with other evidence," the bench said. It clarified that it will not make a decision based on facts because each individual case must be evaluated based on the evidence gathered.

Case Title: Neeraj Dutta V. State