India: Demand And Acceptance Of A Bribe Must Be Established Beyond Reasonable Doubt In Cases Of Circumstantial Evidence To Sustain Conviction Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act 1988

Facts of the case-

Mr. Ravijit Singh (Complainant) submitted that in April 2000, Mrs. Neeraj Dutta (Appellant), who was working as an Inspector in the D.V.B./ Electricity Department in the local area, demanded Rs. 10,000/- bribe in exchange for installing an electricity meter in the shop of the Complainant. The Complainant seeing no other option had to accept her demands. On the same day, the Appellant came to his shop with the co-accused and demanded the documents and bribe, which was paid by the complainant and according to the complainant, a witness was present there at the moment. The Complainant died before the trial commenced. The Special Court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence on record to prove demand and acceptance and therefore prove the guilt of the Appellant and consequently, the Appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (the PC Act). The order of conviction of the Appellant was upheld by the High Court. The Appellant subsequently filed an appeal before the Apex Court wherein due to a split verdict, the instant matter was advised to be referred to a different bench and therefore, the Appellant has preferred the instant appeal.¹

Submissions on behalf of Appellant-

The counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that proof of demand of gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and in the instant case, there is no evidence of demand of illegal gratification by the Appellant. He submitted that the findings of the Courts are based on surmises and conjectures.

Submissions on behalf of Prosecution-

The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the prosecution submitted that based on circumstantial evidence, demand and acceptance were proved and therefore supported the impugned judgements. She further submitted that once the demand and acceptance are established, there is a presumption that acceptance of gratification proves the existence of motive or reward.

Legal Position-

The demand for gratification and the acceptance thereof is sine qua non (absolutely necessary) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the court to draw a conclusion of guilt.

The main question which arises in this case is: Whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/ direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it 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 the PC Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Findings of the Court-

The Supreme Court bench while analysing the issue at hand took view from several other previous judgments of the Apex Court. Under the PC Act, two basic facts are required to be proved under Section 7, being 'demand' and 'acceptance' of gratification. Once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, the Court will have to presume that gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Section 7.²

In respect of degree of proof required to establish an offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe.³ Thus, the demand for gratification and its acceptance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence, including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis, that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused and no other possible hypothesis should be probable considering the circumstantial evidence of the case.

Therefore, in this case, if there is no direct evidence of demand, the court will consider whether there is any solid permanent circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for illegal gratification and acceptance thereof.

Observation and Conclusion of the Bench-

There is absolutely no evidence in respect of the demand made by the Appellant at her residence as no one except the Complainant was present there. Since the Complainant had died, he could not be examined so the direct evidence in this case, is in form of evidence of Mr. S.K. Awasthi (PW-5). According to the case details, PW-5 was the witness to the second demand made by the Appellant and within his statement, he states that the Appellant asked the Complainant to give her papers regarding the electricity meter and Rs.10,000/-, and she told the Complainant that his work would be done.

The court here observed that as per the statement of PW-5, no specific demand of gratification for providing an electricity meter was made in the presence of the witness and PW-5 has no knowledge about the purpose for which the cash was handed over to the Appellant by the Complainant. According to the Appellant's statement, that money was for the payment of sale proceeds of her previous car, which she had sold to the complainant through his business shop.

The court stated that it is important to note that every demand made for payment of money is not a demand for gratification. It has to be something more than mere demand for money.

It was also noted that the complaint regarding the stolen meter by the Complainant was made eight days after the alleged demand for bribe, the Complainant did not produce a copy of the application made by him and the Complainant did not register a complaint regarding the commission of an offence. This makes it extremely doubtful that the Complainant has stated accurate facts.

The bench observed that in the present case, there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted. Hence, the present appeal is allowed by this Court and the impugned judgement of the Special Court and the High Court for conviction and sentence for the Appellant, is set aside. The bail bonds of the Appellant stand cancelled.

Conclusion-

In a case where the evidence available on record is circumstantial, the Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all the evidence clearly indicates demand for gratification and its acceptance thereof, to establish an offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

Footnotes

1. Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi); 2023 SCC OnLine SC 280

2. 2014 (13) SCC 55

3. 2021 (3) SCC 687

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.