Summary
An electricity department employee was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding Rs. 10,000 from a car dealer in 2000 to install a meter; the complainant was murdered before trial, and the trap witness deposed only that she asked for the meter papers and Rs. 10,000 as she was in a hurry. After the Constitution Bench held that demand may be proved circumstantially where the complainant is unavailable, the Division Bench acquitted her: demand and acceptance must still be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the trap witness knew nothing of the purpose of the payment, every demand for money is not a demand for gratification, her defence of collecting car sale proceeds found support in the cash recovered from her car, and the complainant's account was itself doubtful.
Issues
- Whether, applying the Constitution Bench decision permitting proof of demand of illegal gratification by circumstantial evidence in the absence of the complainant, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of a bribe by the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Provisions considered
- Section 7 (as it stood before the 2018 amendment), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Demand and acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration are the sine qua non; the demand must be of gratification as a motive or reward, not a mere request for money, and the only witness to the alleged demand spoke of a request for papers and Rs. 10,000 without any discussion disclosing its purpose. (¶¶ 8, 9, 13, 16, 17)
- Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Obtainment of a pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position requires proof of acceptance of illegal gratification; as demand was not proved, the ingredients of Section 7 and consequently Section 13(1)(d) were not established. (¶¶ 9, 13, 19)
- Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The mandatory but rebuttable presumption that gratification was accepted as a motive or reward arises only after the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved, applies only to Section 7 and not to Section 13(1)(d), and can be rebutted on a preponderance of probability. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- The Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta held that demand and acceptance may be proved by circumstantial evidence where the complainant is dead, hostile or unavailable, and that a presumption of fact may be drawn only from proved foundational facts; it did not dilute the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and where circumstantial evidence is relied on, each circumstance must be established and be consistent only with the hypothesis of demand. (¶¶ 5, 10, 13, 14)
- There was no evidence of the alleged first demand at the accused's residence, and the shadow witness's account of the second occasion disclosed no demand for gratification; he had no knowledge of what had transpired earlier or of the purpose of the cash, and could not deny that the accused had stopped at her neighbour's shop during a collection drive to collect car sale proceeds, a defence supported by the investigating officer's recovery of Rs. 71,900 from her car. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- The complainant's statement that a meter had been installed and later removed is belied by his complaint of a stolen meter lodged eight days after the alleged demand, no application for a meter was produced, and no complaint of the offence was made till a week later, rendering the case of a bribe for installing a meter extremely doubtful; no circumstances proving demand were brought on record. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; Delhi High Court judgment dated 02.04.2009 and the Special Judge's judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside; conviction and sentence set aside and bail bonds cancelled.