Proof of demand necessary in bribe taking case
Proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence of bribe taking, coming under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA). This is what the Supreme Court (SC) says in Shanthamma K V v State of Telangana (Crl A No 261 of 2021).
Mere acceptance of an amount or recovery thereof in the absence of proof of demand, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge.
Trial Court & High Court ordered for conviction
A special court under Prevention of Corruption Act convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PCA. The conviction was confirmed in the appeal by the High Court of Telangana.
The offence under Section 7 of PCA relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance thereof is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of PCA. This well settled law was laid down in para 23 in Satyanarayana Murthy v District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another [ AIR 2015 SC 3549].
In paragraph 23 of the above judgement, it was stated that the failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and near recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the PCA would not entail his conviction thereunder.
In the above said Shanthamma case the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant which was a sine qua non for establishing the offence was not proved by the prosecution. Therefore, the court ordered that the prosecution case will not survive.
SC clarifies it in a Constitutional Bench decision
The SC clarifies, in a constitutional bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v State ( Govt of NCT, New Delhi) [2023(1) KLD 1 (SC), that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a Public Servant is a sine qua non to establish the guilt under Section 7 & 13(1) (d) (i) of the PCA.
The SC states that the fact can be proved by oral or documentary evidence, or even by circumstantial evidence, in the court. Circumstantial evidence is the evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue and when taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of principal fact can be inferred. The fact from which another fact is inferred is the evidence of circumstances.
The SC adds that presumption is not evidence in such cases, but it makes a prima facie case for a party under Section 20 of the PCA. Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted by the accused the court will treat the presumption as tantamount to proof.
Further reading
