PC Act -Is Direct Evidence Of Bribe Demand Necessary To Punish Public Servant? Supreme Court Constitution Bench To Hear On Nov 15
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on Wednesday, decided to commence with the hearing of the plea which raises the question 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...
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on Wednesday, decided to commence with the hearing of the plea which raises the question 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, on 15th November, 2022.
Appearing before a 5-Judge Bench comprising Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna, the Solicitor General of India provided an outline of the present case, "This case is under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Here the bribe giver died, so there is no question of proving the illegal demand made by him. Whether that can be inferred in the trial?"
Justice Nazeer noted that what is of utmost importance is to examine, "Is it the only way to prove?" Mr. Mehta submitted that is precisely what the reference order says.
First, a reference was made by a Division Bench to a larger Bench upon observing that insistence of direct proof or primary evidence for proving the demand may not be in consonance with the view taken many judgments wherein despite the absence of primary evidence of the complainant, the Apex Court had sustained the conviction of the accused by relying on other evidence, and raising a presumption under the statute. It was of the opinion -
"Insistence of direct proof or primary evidence for proving the demand may not be in consonance with the view taken by this Court in number of judgments. The learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to other cases to substantiate her contention that Satyanarayana had not taken note of the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court. We are not delving into the controversy any further"
Later, the 3-judge Bench, which had referred the present issue to the Constitution Bench, had noted -
"We note that two three-judge benches of this Court, in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55; and P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 152, are in conflict with an earlier three-judge bench decision of this Court in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691, 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."
[Case Status: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) Crl.A. 1669/2009]