Supreme Court On Corruption (2022)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder. (Para 44) P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : AIR 2022 SC 4195

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. (Para 68) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. (Para 68) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 - The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act - The Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. (Para 7) K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192 : AIR 2022 SC 1134 : (2022) 4 SCC 574

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(e) - it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term "known sources of income" would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. (Para 80) State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741 : AIR 2022 SC 4218

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(e) - Prosecution not required to conduct an open ended or rowing enquiry or investigation to find out all alleged/claimed known sources of income of an accused who is investigated under the PC Act, 1988. The prosecution can rely upon the information furnished by the accused to the authorities under law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. No further investigation is required by the prosecution to find out the known sources of income of the accused public servant. As noticed above, the first part of the explanation refers to income received from legal/lawful sources. (Para 41) State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741 : AIR 2022 SC 4218

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 17A - Section 17A does not have retrospective operation - It could not possibly have been the intent of the legislature that all pending investigations upto July, 2018 should be rendered infructuous. (Para 11 -12) State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory. The consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason. The competent authority shall be Accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act - Upon expiry of the three months and the additional one-month period, the aggrieved party, be it the complainant, accused or victim, would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court and seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears. (Para 37-38) Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832 : AIR 2022 SC 4974

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration. The opinion of the CVC is only advisory. It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority. The final decision of the appointing authority must be of its own by application of independent mind - There is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant. (Para 18) Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832 : AIR 2022 SC 4974