Supreme Court defers decision on corruption case pending larger bench ruling: State of Kerala vs. M. Karunakaran (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 11th July 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 617

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a public servant be convicted of corruption if there is no direct evidence of them asking for a bribe? The Supreme Court of India is currently grappling with this complex question. In a recent case, the Court has decided to wait for a larger bench to clarify the law before making a final decision. This case involves allegations of corruption against two Excise Prevention Officers in Kerala. The court is faced with the question of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act when direct evidence of demand is missing. The bench was composed of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The case revolves around allegations against two Excise Prevention Officers in Hosdurg, Kerala. On March 21, 2001, the officers visited a toddy shop and allegedly demanded ₹2,000 from the shop’s caretaker, P.J. Joseph (PW1). They instructed him to bring the money to the Excise Range Office on March 24, 2001. Following this, P.J. Joseph filed a complaint with the Vigilance Department on March 24, 2001. A raid was organized, and the officers were allegedly caught accepting ₹1,000 and ₹500, respectively, from the complainant at the Excise Range Office on the same day.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Special Court convicted the accused officers. Accused No. 1 was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000, while Accused No. 2 was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. The officers appealed to the High Court of Kerala, which overturned the Special Court’s decision on February 22, 2018, acquitting both accused. The High Court based its decision on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the twin conditions of demand and acceptance, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2017) 8 SCC 136]. The State of Kerala then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s acquittal, which was delayed by 632 days.

Legal Framework

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

• 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, which includes obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their position.
• Section 13(2): This section specifies the punishment for criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d).

These provisions are designed to prevent corruption among public servants and ensure they perform their duties honestly and without personal gain.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

• State of Kerala: The State argued that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused. They contended that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to prove the charges of corruption. They relied on the three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. [(2001) 1 SCC 691], which, according to the State, laid down the correct position of law.
• Accused: The accused argued that the High Court correctly acquitted them as the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of demand and acceptance of a bribe. They relied on the decision in Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2017) 8 SCC 136], which emphasized the need for direct evidence of demand.

The core of the dispute was whether the prosecution needed to provide direct evidence of demand for a bribe or if circumstantial evidence could suffice, especially when the complainant’s testimony is not available or reliable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused based on the lack of direct evidence of demand and acceptance of a bribe, particularly in light of conflicting precedents.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided to treat the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court did not make a final judgment on the merits of the case. Instead, it decided to adjourn the matter sine die, meaning indefinitely, until a larger bench decides the legal question referred to it in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). This question pertains to whether a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be based on circumstantial evidence when direct evidence of demand for a bribe is missing.

The Court’s reasoning is as follows:

• The High Court acquitted the accused by relying on Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2017) 8 SCC 136], which emphasized the need for direct evidence of demand and acceptance of a bribe.
• The State relied on M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. [(2001) 1 SCC 691], which had a different view on the nature of proof required.
• The Court noted that there were conflicting decisions on this issue, as highlighted in B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 55] and P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh [(2015) 10 SCC 152].
• A three-judge bench in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) had already referred the question of whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction in the absence of direct evidence to a larger bench.
• Given that the issue in the present appeal is similar to the one before the larger bench, the Court decided to defer its decision until the larger bench clarifies the law.

The Court stated, “Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decision in the present appeal(s) be deferred till the question of law, which is referred to a larger bench…is decided by the larger bench.”

The Court also noted, “It is reported that the said reference is pending and the aforesaid question of law is yet to be determined and/or considered by a larger bench.”

The court further directed, “The Registry is to notify the present criminal appeal(s) for final hearing after the decision on the question of law by the larger bench of the reference is made hereinabove.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to defer the judgment indicates a careful approach, prioritizing legal clarity and consistency. The Court recognized the conflict between different precedents regarding the nature of evidence required for convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The fact that a similar question had already been referred to a larger bench suggests that the Court wanted to ensure a definitive ruling that would be applicable across similar cases. This shows a commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring that decisions are based on a clear and consistent interpretation of the law.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has deferred its decision in this corruption case, pending a ruling by a larger bench on the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in corruption cases.
• The case highlights the ongoing debate about the nature of evidence required to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The decision underscores the importance of legal consistency and the need for a definitive interpretation of the law by a larger bench when conflicting precedents exist.
• This case has implications for future corruption cases where direct evidence of demand is not available.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Registry to notify the present criminal appeals for final hearing after the larger bench decides the question of law referred to it in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when there are conflicting precedents on a point of law, the Supreme Court will defer its decision until a larger bench clarifies the law. This case does not change any previous position of law but highlights the need for a clear and consistent interpretation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly regarding the nature of evidence required for conviction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to defer its judgment in State of Kerala vs. M. Karunakaran reflects a commitment to legal certainty and consistency. By awaiting the larger bench’s ruling on the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in corruption cases, the Court aims to provide a definitive interpretation of the law that will guide future cases. This approach underscores the importance of resolving conflicting precedents to ensure a fair and consistent application of justice.