Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – CrPC Section 482 – Discharge Application – Prima Facie Case – Illegal Gratification – Misuse of Authority

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that there was no evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be invoked without proof of such demand. The Court also noted that the allegations pertained to misuse of authority, which did not fall under the provisions of the Act. (Paras 23, 25)

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 482, 245, 311 – Discharge Application, Quashing of Proceedings, Summoning of Witnesses.

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 107, 116 – Abetment, Common Intention.

4. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) – Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Illegal Gratification, Misuse of Public Office, Presumption of Corruption.

Subjects:

Prevention of Corruption Act – Discharge Application – Prima Facie Case – Illegal Gratification – Misuse of Authority – Tender Process – Tribal Community – Presumption of Corruption – Circumstantial Evidence – Quashing of Proceedings.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation:

   • The appellant, a former Minister in the Gujarat Government, challenged the refusal of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations pertained to the illegal allocation of fishing contracts without following the tender process, causing a loss to the State exchequer. (Paras 2, 9)

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?

   • The appellant sought quashing of the criminal proceedings, arguing that there was no evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. He contended that the grants were made to benefit the tribal community and were in line with the State’s policy. (Paras 2, 4)

3. Reason for Filing the Case:

   • The complainant, a fish trader, alleged that the appellant, along with other accused, had allocated fishing contracts without a tender process, resulting in a loss to the State. The High Court had earlier quashed the grants and directed a fresh tender process. (Paras 2, 9)

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?

   • The High Court had refused to quash the proceedings, holding that there was a prima facie case against the appellant. The Special Court had also rejected the discharge application, citing a strong suspicion of corruption. (Paras 3, 7)

Issues:

1. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant, despite the absence of evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification? (Paras 4, 10)

2. Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance of bribe? (Paras 10, 12)

3. Whether the appellant’s discharge application should have been allowed, given the lack of material evidence against him? (Paras 15, 23)

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Appellant’s Arguments:

   • The appellant argued that there was no evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe. The grants were made to benefit the tribal community, and the policy deviation did not amount to corruption. Reliance was placed on Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat to contend that a prima facie case cannot be based on mere suspicion. (Paras 4, 5, 10)

2. Respondent’s Arguments:

   • The respondent argued that the policy deviation indicated an intent to profit illegally, causing a loss to the State. The High Court had earlier found a prima facie case, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could be invoked based on circumstantial evidence. (Paras 6, 7)

Ratio:

1. Proof of Demand and Acceptance:

   • The Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere suspicion or policy deviation cannot lead to a presumption of corruption. (Paras 11, 12)

2. Presumption Under Section 20:

   • The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can only be invoked if there is proof of demand and acceptance of bribe. In the absence of such proof, the presumption does not apply. (Paras 12, 22)

3. Discharge Application:

   • The Court held that the discharge application should have been allowed as there was no material evidence against the appellant. The allegations of misuse of authority did not attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Paras 15, 23)