PC Act | Constitution Bench Judgment Allowing Circumstantial Evidence Does Not Dilute Requirement Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt : Supreme Court

With this, the bench allowed the appeal filed by one Neeraj Dutta (Appellant) against his conviction under Section 7 and clauses (i) and (ii) of Section13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by a Special Judge, Delhi and upheld by the Delhi High Court.

Significantly, this case has a rich history to its name as the Supreme Court, while dealing with this matter for over 3 years, was faced with two different views - one of which advocated that the demand for a bribe cannot be proved but by direct proof or primary evidence (supported by Top Court’s ruling in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014), and P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. State of Andhra), and second, that it was not always necessary to prove such demand by way of direct evidence, backed by Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.

The issue was put to rest in December 2022, with the Constitution Bench ruling the second view to be the law of the land. Read more about the Court observations here: Direct Evidence Of Bribe Demand Not Necessary To Convict Public Servant Under Prevention Of Corruption Act : Supreme Court CB

The facts in brief/Background of the case

As per the prosecution’s case, in April 2000, the Appellant (Neerja Dutta), who was working as an Inspector in the D.V.B./electricity department in the local area, demanded Rs. 10K bribe in exchange for installing an electricity meter in the shop of the complainant (who was allegedly murdered later on).

On the basis of the complaint, a trap was laid, however, when the members of the raiding party visited the complainant’s shop at 3:50 pm, the appellant was not present there. The appellant came there at 5: 20 with the co-accused and demanded the documents and bribe which was paid by the complainant.

The Special Court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence on record to prove the guilt of the appellant. In fact, a finding was recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence that the demand and acceptance were proved. The High Court upheld the order.

Now, a challenge was moved before the SC in the year 2019. After the Top Court’s CB Judgment clarified that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of a bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence, the Court went ahead to decide the appeal.

Supreme Court’s analysis

At the outset, referring to Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, as it stood prior to the 2018 amendment, the Bench noted that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant.

The Court further observed that once it is proved that illegal gratification (undue advantage) is demanded and accepted by a public servant, the presumption, though rebuttable, under Section 20 can be invoked.

“When the allegation is of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof by the accused, it must be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. The fact that the demand and acceptance of gratification were for motive or reward as provided in Section 7 can be proved by invoking the presumption under Section 20 provided the basic allegations of the demand and acceptance are proved”

Further, regarding the offences under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d), the bench said that the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification will be necessary and the same can be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral or documentary evidence, though the allegation has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Against this backdrop, the Court examined the facts of the case to ascertain as to whether there was any evidence (direct oral, documentary, or circumstantial).

The Court noted that the first demand was made in the house of the complainant, of which no evidence is available, and the second demand was made during the trap.

However, the Court further noted that in the statement of PW­5, the alleged witness to the second demand, only this much was stated that the accused reached the shop of the complainant wherein she (the accused) asked the complainant to give papers regarding his electricity meter and Rs.10,000/­ to her as she was in a hurry.

Analyzing the said statement, the Court observed that the issue of proof of demand within the meaning of Section 7 cannot be a simpliciter demand for money but it has to be a demand of gratification other than legal remuneration.

“All that PW­5 says is when the appellant visited the shop of the complainant, she asked the complainant to give papers regarding the electricity meter and Rs.10,000/­ to her by telling him that she was in a hurry. This is not a case where a specific demand of gratification for providing electricity meter was made by the appellant to the complainant in the presence of the shadow witness. PW­5 has not stated that there was any discussion in his presence between the appellant and the complainant on the basis of which an inference could have been drawn that there was a demand made for gratification by the appellant. The witness had no knowledge about what transpired between the complainant and the appellant earlier. PW­5 had admittedly no personal knowledge about the purpose for which the cash 20 Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009 was allegedly handed over by the complainant to the appellant.”

In addition to this, the Court also found certain related facts creating serious doubt about the prosecution’s case.

Consequently, finding no circumstances proving the demand for gratification in the case, the Court held that the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted.

With this, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant was set aside.

Case title - Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) [Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009]

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211