2019 (8) TMI 1896 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification - offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - It is noted that two three-judge benches of this Court, in the cases of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 (3) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT and P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2015 (9) TMI 1666 - SUPREME COURT , are in conflict with an earlier three-judge bench decision of this Court in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., 2000 (12) TMI 892 - SUPREME COURT , regarding the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the primary evidence of the complainant is unavailable. It is considered appropriate to refer the question of law framed to be decided by a bench of appropriate strength. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of evidentiary requirements under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Validity of inferential deductions in sustaining a conviction in the absence of primary evidence.
3. Conflict between different judgments on proof required for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed a reference concerning the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stemming from doubts raised in a previous order regarding the legality of inferential deductions in convicting under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act when primary evidence is lacking. The Court noted conflicting judgments where convictions were upheld without primary evidence, leading to a referral question on whether inferential deductions can establish the guilt of a public servant based on other evidence. The Court highlighted cases like Kishan Chand Mangal v. State of Rajasthan and M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., which supported convictions without primary evidence, contrary to the earlier position in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police. This conflict prompted the Court to refer the question for determination by a larger bench.

In the detailed analysis, the Court acknowledged the divergence in interpreting the evidentiary requirements for proving offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, especially in cases where primary evidence from the complainant is unavailable due to various reasons, such as death. The Court recognized the conflicting decisions within its own precedents, notably between the cases of B. Jayaraj, P.Satyanarayana Murthy, and M. Narsinga Rao, leading to uncertainty on the necessary proof to sustain a conviction under the Act. Consequently, the Court decided to refer the question to a bench of appropriate strength for resolution, directing the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for further action. This referral aims to clarify the legal position on whether inferential deductions can suffice to establish the culpability of a public servant under the specified sections of the Act when primary evidence is lacking, thereby seeking to harmonize the conflicting interpretations and provide clarity on the evidentiary standards in corruption cases.