The Supreme Court on Thursday, 15 December, held that a public servant could be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence if direct evidence was not available.
A constitution bench led by Justice Abdul S Nazeer and made up of V Ramasubramaniam, BR Gavai, As Bopanna and BV Nagarathna said that acceptance of illegal gratification and proof of demand can be proved by cirucmstantial evidence in case direct oral or documentary evidence was unavailable.
The court however clarified that presumption of fact in this case could be made by a court of law by way of inference only when foundational facts have been proven.
While proving the foundational facts, the following have to be kept in mind the court, according to Bar and Bench, added:
-" If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without any demand by public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7;
- If public servant makes a demand and giver accepts it, it is a case of obtainment. In both cases, the offer and demand have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue;
- Mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or 13(1)."
This judgement relates to a 2019 case when a division bench had referred the matter tp a larger 3-judge bench, which had further referred it to a constitution bench.
The constitution bench had reserved its verdict on 23 November.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)