2019 (2) TMI 2097 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification - Bribe - Contention of the appellant is that mere proof of receipt of money by the accused in the absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused - conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - The following issue requires consideration by the larger Bench - 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. The matter be placed before the Hon ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable without direct evidence of demand of illegal gratification.
2. The applicability of inferential deduction in proving the demand of illegal gratification in the absence of direct or primary evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the evidence of a shadow witness (PW-5) and the recovery of money. The High Court affirmed this conviction and the sentence of imprisonment. However, the appellant contended that mere proof of receipt of money, in the absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification, is insufficient to establish guilt. The appellant argued that the death of the complainant before the trial meant that primary evidence of demand was not available, and thus the conviction could not be sustained.

2. Applicability of Inferential Deduction:

The appellant's counsel 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 Supreme Court held that the failure to prove the demand for illegal gratification due to the complainant's death was fatal to the prosecution's case. The court in Satyanarayana emphasized that inferential deduction of demand is impermissible in law and that the prosecution must prove the factum of demand beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conversely, the respondent's counsel argued that the consistent view of the Supreme Court in various judgments allows for the proof of demand through inference from other evidence, such as the testimony of panch witnesses and circumstantial evidence. The respondent cited several cases, including Kishan Chand Mangal v. State of Rajasthan (1982) 3 SCC 466 and Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) (1980) 2 SCC 390, where the courts upheld convictions based on circumstantial evidence and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, even in the absence of direct evidence of demand.

In M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691, the Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could be drawn even without direct evidence of demand, provided that the acceptance of gratification was proved. The court emphasized that presumption is an inference drawn from other proved facts and that it is permissible to draw such an inference based on circumstantial evidence.

The Supreme Court recognized that direct or primary evidence of demand might not always be available, especially in cases where the complainant is dead, has turned hostile, or is otherwise unavailable. In such instances, the court may rely on the evidence of panch witnesses, the results of the Phenolphthalein Test, and other circumstantial evidence to draw an inference of demand.

Referral to Larger Bench:

Given the conflicting views, the Supreme Court acknowledged the need for a larger bench to consider the issue of whether it is permissible to draw inferential deductions of culpability under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of direct or primary evidence of demand. The matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's judgment highlights the complexities involved in proving the demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, especially in the absence of direct evidence. The court's decision to refer the matter to a larger bench underscores the need for a clear and consistent legal standard on this issue.