On December 15, the Supreme Court ruled that circumstantial evidence could suffice to condemn a public official under the Prevention of Corruption Act in lieu of direct evidence of a demand for bribes.

If the demand for illegal gratification is proven through inferential evidence based on circumstances, the public servant may nevertheless be found guilty under the PC Act even if the complainant's direct proof is not available due to death or other circumstances. Only when fundamental facts have been established can a court of law conclude a presumption of fact regarding a demand or acceptance.

The Constitution Bench, which was made up of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B. V. Nagarathna, held that inferential deduction 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, is permissible in the absence of complainant evidence or direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification.

On November 23, the judgment had been reserved by the five-judge bench.

The following was the operative part of the judgement, according to Justice Nagarathna:

"In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be either proved by direct evidence, in nature of oral evidence/documentary evidence. Further, the fact in issue namely, 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".

Further, it was held :

"In the event the complainant turns hostile or has died or is unable to let in his evidence during the trial, the demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence either orally or documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the public servant"

The other conclusions from the judgment are as follows:

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a fact in issue is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

In order to prove the fact in issue, namely the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

(i) If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver, without there being any demand from the public servant, and the later simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per S. 7 of the Act. In such case there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe is given or the demanded gratification in tendered, which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment the prior demand of illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under S. 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

In both cases, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under S. 7 or Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii).

Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved. A presumption is subject to rebuttal by the accused.

There is no conflict in the 3-Judge decision of the court in Jayraj and P. Satyanarayan Murthy with 3-Judge Bench decision in M.Narsingh Rao with the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii)

CASE TITLE: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD)
Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009 

Read the complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/11311/11311_2009_3_1501_40650_Judgement_15-Dec-2022.pdf