“The question, ‘whether in 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 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?’, requires a Larger Bench.”

In absence of evidence of complainant [direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence] it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) based on other evidence adduced.

Hazari Lal v. Delhi Admn., (1980) 2 SCC 390 observed, it is not necessary, passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It could also be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Court must adopt a cautious approach while basing its conviction purely on circumstantial evidence. Inference of guilt can be drawn only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence. If combined effect of all proven facts taken together is conclusive in establishing guilt, a conviction would be justified even though any one or more of those facts by itself is not decisive [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 as reiterated in Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 668].

We hope for sincere efforts to ensure, corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted.  

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Mrs. Neeraj Dutta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, [Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009].

_____

It would be apposite to point out Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 14.

“The reputation of being corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds and gain notoriety much faster than smoke.”

Constitutional Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 answered ‘whether in absence of evidence of complainant / direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability / guilt of a public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’ in affirmative.

– Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan, State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha, [Criminal Appeal No. 2646 of 2024] decided on 26.11.2024.

_____

It would be appropriate not to limit such a comprehensive definition of ‘public servant’ by a construction which would be against The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It deserves a wide and purposive construction.

Five-Judge Bench of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 categorically held, an offer by a bribe-giver and demand by a public servant have to be proved as a fact in issue for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of PC Act. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without aforesaid proof would not make an offence.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Aman Bhatia v. State, [Criminal Appeal No. 2613 of 2014] decided on 02.05.2024.