SC held circumstantial evidence does not dilute requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt under PC Act

Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (Supreme Court of India)

Conclusion: The Constitutional Bench ruled that allows Circumstantial Evidence did not dilute the requirement of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since there were no circumstances brought on record which would prove the demand for gratification, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) would not be attracted.

Held: The complainant died before the trial commenced. The Investigation Officer, deposed that the complainant was murdered. In his complaint, the complainant stated that he was doing business of sale and purchase of cars in a shop. His case was that there was no electricity meter installed in his shop and therefore, he applied for an electricity meter. Pursuant to the application, a meter was installed in his shop and after a few months, he found that the meter was removed. According to the complainant, the appellant stated that she would come to his shop between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. when the complainant should hand over the papers for the electricity meter and Rs.10,000/­ as a bribe. The complainant stated that he had no option but to accept her demand for a bribe. The question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, was 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. It was held that broadly, the Constitution Bench held that in absence of the complaint’s testimony in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act, the prosecution can rely upon even circumstantial evidence to prove the demand of gratification. In the complaint filed by the deceased complainant on 17^th April 2000, in the form of his statement recorded by the Anti-­Corruption Bureau, he had stated that pursuant to the application dated 6^th May 1996, a meter was installed in his shop and after a few months, he found that the meter was removed. However, the Special Court had observed in the impugned judgment that a complaint regarding a stolen electricity meter was registered at the instance of the complainant. Thus, the grievance regarding stolen meter was made by the complainant 8 days after the alleged demand for bribe. In fact, the authority admitted that the complainant did not produce a copy of the application made by him for providing electricity meter. The authority  further stated that the complainant did not clearly tell him that he had given such application. In absence of proof of making such application, the prosecution’s case regarding demand of bribe for installing new electricity meter becomes doubtful. Moreover, till 24^th April 2000, the complainant did not register a complaint regarding commission of offence. This made the prosecution’s case regarding the demand of gratification on 17^th April 2000 for installing a new electricity meter extremely doubtful. In the present case, there were no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) would not be attracted.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 7 and clauses (i) and (ii) of Section13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). The co­accused, Mr. Yogesh Kumar, was convicted by the Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act. The co­accused was acquitted by the High Court. The appellant was sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/­ for the offence punishable under sub­section (2) of Section 13 of the PC Act. For the offence punishable under Section 7, she was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/­. Sentences in default of payment of fine were also imposed. The conviction of the appellant has been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.