Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court dealt with a question on whether, in the event of unavailability of primary evidence or complainant’s death, inferences could be drawn from other evidence to justify the illegal gratification obtained by a public servant. The Court referred the matter to a larger Bench and brought the question about whether the guilt of a public servant could be deduced inferentially under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The matter reached the Hon’ble Bench of the Apex Court comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice R Subhash Reddy which said that the court had some reservation based on the findings in the case—P Satyanarayana Murthy Vs District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh. The bench considered another case—Neeraj Dutta Vs. State, which was filed against conviction under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The counsel appearing for the defendant argued that mere proof of receipt money without proof for any demand of illegal gratification could not prove the accused guilty. Since the complainant ceased to exist, the conviction of the accused could not be sustained due to the lack of primary evidence. In the case, it was held that recovery of the amount from the public servant would not imply his conviction; and additionally, failure to prove the demand of illegal gratification by a public servant through primary evidence due to the death of the complainant would jeopardize the prosecution side.
The learned counsel appearing for the state brought a plethora of cases in support of his contention. He contended that where the complainant had died or otherwise unavailable, and the primary evidence could not be adduced on account thereof. The state’s counsel said the court that in the Satyanarayana case, the judicial institution did not take into consideration the various judgements which state that direct evidence or inferences from other evidence such as panch witness for proving the demand.
The Court observed three instances where direct evidence may not be available: (i) where the complainant is dead and could not be examined; (ii) complainant turned hostile, and (iii) complainant could not be examined either due to non-availability or other reasons. The Court said that drawing inferences from other evidence is valid under section 20 of the Act, and acceptance of money was proved by Phenolphthalein Test by relying on evidence given by the 12 panch witnesses.
Subsequently, the bench referred the case to a larger bench and observed that insistence of direct or primary evidence to prove the demand may not be in harmony with the view of the court taken in many verdicts. In view of the different view taken in the Satyanarayana case, to which the learned counsel drew the court’s attention, the court would not deal with the matter any further.
86540
103860
630
114
59824