PC Act: Can Guilt Of A Public Servant Be Presumed In Absence Of Direct Evidence Of Illegal Gratification? SC Refers Matter To Larger Bench

The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy said it has some reservation in respect of the observation and findings recorded in the judgment P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh.

The bench observed thus in an appeal (Neeraj Dutta vs. State) filed against conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

It was contended before the bench that, mere proof of receipt of money by the accused in the absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The argument was that when the complainant passed away, primary evidence of demand is not forthcoming and when the prosecution could not establish the demand by such primary evidence, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Senior Advocate S. Guru Krishna Kumar, who appeared for appellant placed reliance on the judgment in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh.

In Satyanarayana Murthy judgment, it was held that the failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification due to the death of complainant would be fatal to the prosecution case and recovery of the amount from the accused would not entail his conviction.

On the other hand, state's counsel, senior Advocate Kiran Sori, cited a number of Apex court judgments where accused was convicted even when the evidence of complainant was not available either due to death of complainant or where the complainant had turned hostile. He contended that in Satyanarayana, the court did not notice the line of judgments and the consistent view taken by this Court in various decisions that demand can be proved either by direct evidence or by drawing inference from other evidence like evidence of panch witness and the circumstances.

The bench observed: "The direct or primary evidence of demand may not be available at least in three instances:- (i) where the complainant is dead and could not be examined; (ii) complainant turned hostile; and (iii) complainant could not be examined either due to non-availability or other reasons. Direct proof of demand may not be available in all the above instances but from the evidence of 12 panch witness, acceptance of money was proved by Phenolphthalein Test and by raising presumption under Section 20 of the Act, it is permissible to draw inference to prove the demand."

The bench, then referred the matter to larger bench and observed: "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"