PC Act -Is Direct Evidence Of Bribe Demand Necessary To Punish Public Servant? Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgement- Read Full Courtroom Exchange

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, it is 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 prosecutionEarlier, appearing before the 5-Judge Bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna, SG Tushar Mehta had 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 had noted that what is of utmost importance is to examine, "Is it the only way to prove?" The SG had 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"The court-room exchange as it transpired on Tuesday is as follows-'Mere receipt of any money or property with no proved demand would not give rise to any assumption under PC Act S. 20 that there was obtainment'- Sr. Adv. S. Nagamuthu for the appellantsMr. Nagamuthu: "If the offer originates from the bribe giver and it is accepted by the public servant, this is acceptance. Section 7 covers this. If the offer, the demand arises from the public servant and it is accepted by the bribe giver, it is obtainment. Both are different. The differences are dealt with in section 20"Bench: "Why are we doing all this research about offer, demand and acceptance of payment? So that the people who receive money should escape? He is a very good man, he does not make any demands, he only accepts?"Mr. Nagamuthu: "There are two facts of issue in obtainment- whether there was demand, whether he received the money in pursuance of demand. In case of acceptance also there are 2 facts of issue. Every fact of issue has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far as Satyanarayana Murthy is concerned, by the use of the word 'primary evidence' what they mean is 'direct evidence'"Bench: "If the de facto complainant is dead or turns hostile, whether the demand can be proved or not- that is the main question"Mr. Nagamuthu: "It can be. From other evidence. That is what Satyanarayana Murthy says"Bench: "Then Satyanarayana Murthy has been wrongly decided. Because there, the complainant is dead, but PW1's evidence, if it is taken into consideration, would have proved the demand as well as acceptance. So prima facie, we find that the reference is correct"Mr. Nagamuthu: "The law stated in the judgment is that demand, as a fact in issue, has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. How it is to be proved in absence of de facto complainant? From other evidence. That is agreed. But no other presumption will arise. Section 20 cannot be invoked....See dowry death- they have to be married, death must occur in seven years, there must be harassment soon before death with regard to dowry- these are all foundational facts. Then we presume that the husband or relative has caused the death. In the absence of proof of any one of these foundational facts, 114 (Evidence Act) presumption cannot arise. 114 is applicable to presumption in prevention of corruption act also. But the foundational facts must be proved in order to evoke the presumption under 114. Law stated in Satyanarayana...

PC Act -Is Direct Evidence Of Bribe Demand Necessary To Punish Public Servant? Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgement- Read Full Courtroom Exchange

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags