The Supreme Court's Constitution bench on Thursday held that
direct evidence of demand for bribe by public servants is not necessary to
convict them under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and it can also
be proved through circumstantial evidence when there is no direct evidence
against them.
A five-judge Constitution bench of Justices Abdul
Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna said that
corrupt officials must be booked and convicted.
Corruption has taken a gigantic proportion affecting
the governance and has a demoralizing effect on honest officers, the bench
said.
While pronouncing the verdict, the apex court said
that even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to
death or other reasons, there can be a conviction of the public servant under
the PC Act with circumstantial evidence.
"This can be proved either by direct evidence in
the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. Further, the fact in issue
namely the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be
proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral or documentary
evidence," the bench in its verdict stated.
It said that the trial would not automatically abate
nor can result in an acquittal of a public servant just because the complainant
dies or turns hostile or does not take the stand and held that a case can still
be proved with other evidence or testimonies.
The Constitution bench's verdict came on a plea
raising question if public servants can be prosecuted for bribery if
bribe givers fail to record their statements or turn hostile.
The bench had concluded the hearing on the issue of
whether death, non-appearance of complainants or them turning hostile will
impact pending cases against the public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The question before the Constitution bench was also to examine whether in such
a scenario it will for the prosecution to establish guilt using other evidence.
A public servant can be convicted in offences related
to bribery if the element of demand and acceptance of bribes is proved.
In February 2019, a three-judge bench referred the
matter to the Chief Justice of India citing an inconsistency in an earlier top
court decision of 2015 where the court had said that public servants ought
to be acquitted if the primary evidence was lacking against them.
The apex court then said direct proof of demand might
not be available if the complainant is dead or could not be examined, turned
hostile, or was not available for other reasons.
The Central government during the hearing before the
Constitution bench has said that the court has a perfect opportunity to clarify
its 2015 judgment to say that lack of direct evidence or primary evidence will
not result in automatic acquittal.
The government pointed out several cases where the
accused were set free on the basis of the 2015 verdict.
It batted for a stringent anti-corruption law saying
it is the "need of the hour" as corruption is making the country
hollow.