Team News Riveting
New Delhi, December 15
In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that direct evidence of demand of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A Constitution Bench led by Justice S Abdul Nazeer and also comprising Justices V Ramasubramanian, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, and BV Nagarathna said that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral or documentary evidence.
Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances, it added. Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.
“In the absence of evidence of complainant (direct or primary), it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability,” the Court held.
The Court further said that in order to prove the demand and acceptance the following aspects have to be borne in mind: If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without any demand by public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7; If public servant makes a demand and giver accepts it, it is a case of obtainment. In both cases, the offer and demand have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue; Mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or 13(1).
The bench also held that there was no conflict in its earlier three-judge bench decisions which gave rise to the Constitution bench reference with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d).
