The Supreme Court has held that circumstantial evidence is enough to hold a public servant guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, when there is absence of direct evidence. It said corruption is “corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes” and its “stink” severely impacted administration, nation-building and governance.
The top court said corruption has become a major problem, which often has a demoralising effect on officials who intend to carry out their work with honesty. “In the absence of evidence of complainant (direct or primary), it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability,” a constitution bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, V Ramasubramanian, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, and BV Nagarathna said on the point of law.
The bench said it is hopeful that sincere efforts will be made to ensure that corrupt public servants are brought to justice, so that the administration and governance remains “unpolluted” and free of corruption.
The court also reflected on its earlier judgments while replying if public servants can be convicted for corruption in the absence of direct oral or documentary evidence, due to unavailability of the complainant owing to their death or for any other reason.
The SC said if there has been an acceptance or demand of illegal gratification in the concerned case, a presumption of fact can be drawn by the court of law when foundational facts have been proven in order to justify culpability.
The bench stipulated different instances to arrive at if such a demand or acceptance of illegal gratification has been made. The apex court noted that even when the public servant has not made a demand for bribe but receives illegal gratification, it will be a case of acceptance under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which stipulates a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Whereas, in case of obtainment, where a demand has been made by a public servant for illegal gratification and the giver accepts, both aspects of demand and offer have to be proved by the prosecution.
While arriving at the decision, the SC further clarified that the said judgment posed no conflict with its decisions, which eventually made way for the instant constitution bench reference with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“We clarify that presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from the presumption in fact and the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature,” the bench said.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment