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.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor