NEW DELHI: Terming corruption by public officers a gigantic problem, a Supreme Court Constitution bench on Thursday ruled that courts can infer demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant on the basis of circumstantial proof in the absence of direct evidence.
“In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct or primary, oral or documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability or guilt of public servant. Under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution,” the bench headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer observed.
“In case the complainant turns hostile or dies or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence either orally or by documentary evidence or prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in acquittal of accused public servant.”
If a bribe-giver offers illegal gratification without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter accepts the offer, it would be a case of acceptance under Section 7 of the PC Act. But, if the accused public servant makes a demand for a bribe and accepts the payment, it would be a case of obtainment and an offence under 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the SC said.