PC Act - Can Public Servant Be Convicted Without Direct Evidence Of Bribe Demand? Supreme Court Defers Appeal To Await Decision On Reference

The Supreme Court recently adjourned the hearing in an appeal in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to await the decision of the pending reference on the issue as to whether a public servant can be convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) in the absence of direct evidence of demand for illegal gratification.

A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Kerala challenging the acquittal of an Excise Officer in a corruption case.

The High Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the twin conditions of demand and acceptance has not been established and proved. The High Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his LR Vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 8 SCC 136. On the other hand, the State relied upon a three­-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P.; (2001) 1 SCC 691.

The bench noted that taking note of the conflict in views regarding the nature of proof in such cases, a reference was made by a bench in the case Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi); Criminal Appeal No. 1669/2009.  The referring bench noted conflict in the decisions in B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2014) 13 SCC 55 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another; (2015) 10 SCC 152 with that of the three judge bench in the case of M. Narsinga Rao(supra).

The following was the question referred :

"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?".

Since the above reference is still pending, the bench chose to adjourn the appeal.

"The issue arising in the present appeal is somewhat similar and the decision of a larger bench may have a direct effect on the decision of the present appeal(s). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decision in the present appeal(s) be deferred till the question of law, which is referred to a larger bench, referred to hereinabove, in Criminal Appeal No. 1669/2009, is decided by the larger bench", the Court said while adjourning the appeal sine die.

Case Title : State of Kerala vs M Karunakaran

Click here to read/download the order