Demand of Illegal Gratification: Supreme Court refers the matter to Larger Bench in Corruption Cases

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2019

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a public servant be convicted for corruption if the person who made the bribery allegation dies before the trial? The Supreme Court grappled with this question, specifically addressing whether a conviction can be based on indirect evidence when the primary witness is unavailable. This case involves a public servant accused of demanding a bribe for installing an electricity meter. The core issue is whether the prosecution can prove the demand for a bribe when the complainant, who is the primary witness, is deceased. The judges on the bench were R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Case Background

The case revolves around Mrs. Neeraj Dutta, an LDC in the Delhi Vidyut Board, who allegedly demanded a bribe from Ravijit Singh Sethi for installing an electricity meter at his shop. On April 17, 2000, Mrs. Dutta contacted Mr. Sethi and asked him to meet her at her house. There, she initially demanded ₹15,000, which was later reduced to ₹10,000 after negotiation. The bribe was to be paid at Mr. Sethi’s shop later that day. Unwilling to pay, Mr. Sethi filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), leading to a trap being set.

During the trap, Mr. Sethi paid ₹10,000 to Mrs. Dutta, who then allegedly transferred the money to Yogesh Kumar, a driver. Upon a signal from a shadow witness, the ACB team arrived and recovered the money from Mr. Kumar. Both Mrs. Dutta and Mr. Kumar’s hands tested positive for the chemical used on the currency notes. A charge sheet was filed against both under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Mrs. Dutta under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing her to imprisonment and a fine. Mr. Kumar was convicted under Section 12 of the same act for abetment. The High Court upheld Mrs. Dutta’s conviction but acquitted Mr. Kumar, finding no evidence of conspiracy or abetment. Mrs. Dutta then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, specifically:

• Section 7: This section deals with the offense of a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
• Section 13(1)(d): This section defines criminal misconduct by a public servant. It includes obtaining for oneself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing position as a public servant.
• Section 13(2): This section provides the punishment for criminal misconduct under Section 13(1).
• Section 12: This section deals with punishment for abetment of offences defined under the Act.
• Section 20: This section deals with presumption where public servant accepts gratification. It states that if it is proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification, it shall be presumed that he accepted that gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act.

The court also considered Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that mere proof of receipt of money is not sufficient to prove guilt without proof of demand for illegal gratification.
• Since the complainant died before the trial, the primary evidence of demand is missing.
• The appellant relied on the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2015) 10 SCC 152, where the court held that inferential deduction of demand is impermissible in law when the complainant dies before the trial.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that demand can be proved either by direct evidence or by drawing inference from other evidence, such as the evidence of a panch witness and the circumstances of the case.
• The respondent cited several judgments where convictions were upheld even when the complainant’s evidence was not available due to death or hostility.
• The respondent argued that under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the Court is bound to draw a presumption of guilt if the accused is found to have accepted gratification, and the burden is on the accused to prove otherwise.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. “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.”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2015) 10 SCC 152*: The court expressed reservations about the view taken in this case, which held that inferential deduction of demand is impermissible when the complainant dies before the trial.
• Kishan Chand Mangal v. State of Rajasthan (1982) 3 SCC 466*: The court noted this case as an example where conviction was upheld based on circumstantial evidence even when the complainant was not available.
• Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) (1980) 2 SCC 390*: The court noted that this case held that the passing of money need not be proved by direct evidence, and conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence.
• M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691*: The court discussed this case in the context of Section 20 of the P.C. Act, noting that the presumption of guilt can be drawn even when the complainant and panch witness turn hostile.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the conflicting views in its previous judgments regarding the proof of demand in corruption cases, particularly when the complainant is unavailable. The court acknowledged the precedent in P. Satyanarayana Murthy, which favored direct evidence of demand, but also recognized a line of judgments that allowed for inferential deduction of demand based on circumstantial evidence. This conflict led the court to refer the matter to a larger bench for a conclusive decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has acknowledged a significant legal question regarding the proof of demand in corruption cases when the complainant is not available.
• The court has referred the matter to a larger bench, indicating the importance and complexity of the issue.
• The outcome of this case will have significant implications for future corruption cases, particularly those where the complainant is deceased or has turned hostile.

Directions

The matter was directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders for the constitution of a larger bench.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that there is a conflict of opinion in the Supreme Court on the issue of whether the demand of illegal gratification can be inferred based on circumstantial evidence when the complainant is unavailable to give direct evidence. This case does not change the previous position of law but seeks to clarify it by referring the matter to a larger bench.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this case, did not make a final ruling but acknowledged a conflict of opinion in its previous judgments. The court referred the matter to a larger bench to decide whether a public servant can be convicted for corruption based on indirect evidence when the primary witness is unavailable. This decision highlights the ongoing debate on the standards of evidence required in corruption cases and the importance of ensuring fair trials while combating corruption.