Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Mrs. Neeraj Dutta, an LDC in Delhi Vidyut Board, who was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.10,000 from complainant Ravijit Singh Sethi for installation of an electricity meter. The complainant died before trial and could not be examined. The prosecution relied on the evidence of shadow witness PW-5 S.K. Awasthi and the recovery of money. The trial court and High Court convicted the appellant, but the Supreme Court held that in the absence of proof of demand, the conviction cannot be sustained. The Court distinguished earlier cases where conviction was upheld despite complainant's absence, noting that in those cases there was other evidence indicating demand. The Court emphasized that demand is the sine qua non for an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and that mere recovery of money is insufficient. The appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Illegal Gratification - Indispensability of Proof - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The prosecution must prove demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of money or acceptance of gratification is insufficient to sustain conviction in the absence of proof of demand. (Paras 5-10) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Presumption under Section 20 - Condition Precedent - Section 20 - The legal presumption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or agreed to accept gratification; such proof can be by direct or circumstantial evidence, but demand must be established. (Paras 10-11) C) Evidence Act - Presumption under Section 114 - Applicability in Corruption Cases - Section 114 - The court may presume that a person in possession of currency notes soon after their receipt obtained them from the complainant, but this presumption does not dispense with proof of demand. (Para 9) D) Criminal Law - Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence - Inferential Deduction - Where primary evidence of demand is unavailable due to complainant's death, conviction cannot be based on inferential deduction; the prosecution must adduce other reliable evidence to prove demand. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be sustained when the complainant died before trial and the prosecution fails to prove demand of illegal gratification through primary evidence?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Proof of demand of illegal gratification is indispensable for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Mere recovery of money is insufficient
- Presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after demand is proved
- Inferential deduction of demand is impermissible in law
