Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a public servant’s corruption conviction despite the complainant’s death before trial. Demand and other material facts could be established by other oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence. The proved trap proceedings, conscious receipt and recovery supported the prosecution, while the claimed audit-fee explanation failed to rebut the statutory presumption. The appeal, continued by the deceased accused’s wife, was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether death of the complainant prevented proof of the corruption charge.
- Whether the accused’s explanation displaced the presumption arising from proved acceptance of illegal gratification.
Provisions considered
- Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988On proof of the relevant acceptance facts, the rebuttable motive-or-reward presumption applied to the Section 7 charge. Following Neeraj Dutta, the Court expressly noted that this presumption does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii). (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- A complainant’s death, absence or hostility does not automatically defeat the prosecution or require acquittal. Demand of illegal gratification may be proved through other witnesses, documents or circumstantial evidence, as explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta. (¶ 9)
- An accused may establish a reasonable alternative explanation on preponderance of probability, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, once the statutory foundational facts are proved, the Section 20 presumption concerning motive or reward must be considered and remains rebuttable. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The prosecution proved pre-trap and post-trap proceedings through the relevant witnesses, and both courts found conscious acceptance and recovery of tainted currency beyond reasonable doubt. The audit-fee explanation did not tally with the complainant’s recorded account and lacked evidence that the money came from society funds. The presumption was not displaced. (¶ 12)
- The concurrent evaluation of the evidence disclosed no ground for interference with the Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) convictions. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Criminal appeal dismissed on merits, maintaining the conviction and sentence. The deceased accused’s wife had been permitted to continue the appeal.