In Criminal Appeal No.(s) 924-925 /2022- SC- Supreme Court defers case pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act as another matter concerning the same important question of law is already sub judice before larger Apex Court bench – Justices MR Shah & BV Nagarathna [11-07-2022]

Read Order: THE STATE OF KERALA V. M. KARUNAKARAN ETC

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, July 12, 2022: Finding conflict in different judgements of the Supreme Court regarding the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain conviction for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the primary evidence was  unavailable, the Top Court has decided to defer the matter at hand as another Apex Court bench has already referred this important question of law to a larger bench.

A Bench comprisingJustice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna noted that the issue in the present appeal was similar to that lying sub judice with a larger bench and that the decision of a larger bench may cast a direct impact on the adjudication of the present appeal. Since the determination of the aforesaid question of law was reported as pending, the Bench decided to adjourn the appeal. 

The present appeal was preferred by the State of Kerala against the common judgment and order dated February 22, 2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala, whereby the High Court allowed the appeals instituted by the original accused persons and granted acquittal to both the accused for the offenses punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. 

It was the case of the prosecution that the accused persons while working as Excise Prevention Officers visited a toddy shop where they threatened the person who was looking after the affairs of the shop and demanded Rs. 2000/-  from him. 

In pursuance of the same, the prosecution witness lodged a complaint against the accused persons with the Vigilance Department on March 24, 2001; a FIR was registered on the said complaint. The accused persons were found guilty for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

After perusing the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Top Court observed that  it was apparent that the High Court  acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the twin conditions of demand and acceptance were not  established and proved. 

The Top Court further noted that the High Court heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of  Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab. On the contrary, the Court noted that the Counsel for the State relied upon a decision of a three judge bench of this Court in the case of Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P.

In view of the same, it was brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that there was conflict found with the  decisions of two and three judge benches of this Court in the cases of B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; and P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another; with that of an earlier three judge bench decision of this Court in the case of M. Narsinga Rao (supra) regarding nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain conviction for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the primary evidence was  unavailable. 

Subsequently the three judge bench of this Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), referred to an important question of law as to 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 for determination. 

In view of the same it was noted that the issue in the present appeal was similar and the decision of a larger bench may cast a direct impact on the adjudication of the present appeal, the Apex Court submitted. Since the determination of the aforesaid question of law was reported as pending, the Top Court decided to adjourn the appeals.