Summary
In this 2019 referral order, the Court identified divergent decisions on proving a corruption charge when the complainant’s direct evidence of demand is unavailable. It referred for larger-Bench consideration whether culpability could be inferred from other prosecution evidence. The order did not finally decide the appellant’s guilt or the appeal.
Issues
- Whether, in the absence of the complainant’s evidence or direct evidence of demand, guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) could be inferred from other prosecution evidence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), as applicable to the prosecution, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The question concerned the nature of proof of demand and culpability where the complainant had died before trial; authoritative resolution was sought from a larger Bench. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Earlier decisions on statutory presumption and proof through surrounding circumstances were compared in explaining the perceived divergence; the present order referred the evidentiary question. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- P. Satyanarayana Murthy appeared to exclude inferential deduction where direct evidence of demand was unavailable, whereas Kishan Chand Mangal, Hazari Lal and M. Narsinga Rao had sustained convictions through other evidence and permissible inferences. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14)
- The Bench expressed reservations about treating the absence of the complainant’s direct evidence as necessarily fatal, but considered a larger-Bench decision necessary to reconcile the differing approaches. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The referred question was whether other prosecution evidence could support an inferential deduction of culpability under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), notwithstanding the absence of direct or primary evidence of demand. (¶ 13)
- The papers were directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders; the merits of the individual appeal were not finally determined. (¶ 15)
Result
Question of law referred for larger-Bench consideration; Registry directed to place the papers before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.