Constitution Bench to decide on conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act in absence of evidence for demand of bribe

In the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw deduction of culpability of a public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?.A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is likely to decide the same. A Bench of Justices R Banumathi and R Subhash Reddy noted the conflicting opinions in this regard and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders..Facts.In the instant case, the appellant was working as Lower Division Clerk in Delhi Vidyut Board. It was alleged by the complainant that the appellant demanded a bribe for installation of an electricity meter in his shop..As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he made a complaint before Ant-Corruption Bureau, based on which, FIR was registered..Inspector OD Yadav organised the pre-raid proceedings. One SK Awasthi (Prosecution Witness 5) accompanied the complainant and the complainant paid Rs.10,000 to the appellant and she received the amount from the complainant and the same was transferred to the second accused, Yogesh Kumar..Upon receiving the signal from shadow witness Awasthi, the raiding party arrived and recovered Rs.10,000/- from the second accused, Yogesh Kumar.Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and accused Yogesh Kumar under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act)..Since the complainant passed away before the trial, he could not be examined. PW-5, the shadow witness was examined who supported the case of the prosecution. Based upon the evidence of PW-5 and recovery of money from the appellant, the trial court held that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were established by the prosecution..It, therefore, convicted the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for two years and three years respectively and also imposed fine. The trial court also convicted Yogesh Kumar under Section 12 of the PC Act for abetment of the offence..In appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her. The High Court acquitted the second accused of the charges levelled against him holding that there is no evidence to prove conspiracy or abetment. Being aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court..Arguments.Senior Counsel Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the appellant contended that mere proof of receipt of money by the accused in the absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused..It was submitted by him that when the complainant passed away, primary evidence of demand is not forthcoming and when the prosecution could not establish the demand by such primary evidence, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained..He placed reliance upon P Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another [(2015) 10 SCC 152]. In the said case, the complainant died before the trial and thus could not be examined by the prosecution. Panch witness was examined as PW-1, which was the sheet anchor of the prosecution case. Observing that on the demise of the complainant, primary evidence of the demand is not forthcoming and inferential deduction of demand is impermissible in law, the Court had acquitted the accused in that case..Senior Counsel Kiran Suri, appearing for the State submitted that in Satyanarayana, the Court did not notice the line of judgments and the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court in various decisions that demand can be proved either by direct evidence or by drawing inference from other evidence like evidence of panch witness and the circumstances..Suri cited a number of judgments wherein accused were convicted even when the evidence of complainant was not available either due to death of complainant or where the complainant had turned hostile..Some of the judgments relied upon her included Kishan Chand Mangal v. State of Rajasthan [(1982) 3 SCC 466], Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1980) 2 SCC 390] and M Narsinga Rao v. State of AP [(2001) 1 SCC 691]..It was submitted that under Section 20 of the PC Act, the Court is bound to draw presumption mentioned therein and the presumption in question will hold good unless the accused proves the contrary. It was contended that the purpose of the presumption under Section 20 of the Act is to relieve the prosecution from the burden of proving a fact..It was Suri’s argument that the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record and may draw inference to arrive at the conclusion whether demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification have been proved or not. Insistence of direct proof or primary evidence for proving the demand may not be in consonance with the view taken by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments..Judgment.The Court noted that in the light of the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court in various judgments, the Court has reservations regarding the correctness of the view taken in P Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another..Thus, it said that it will not delve into the controversy further and framed the following question for consideration by a larger Bench:.“The question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.”.The Court ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for further orders..Since the judgment in Satyanarayana has been rendered by a Bench of three judges, the case is likely to be placed before a Constitution Bench. a.Read the judgment below.