The evidence of bribe givers isn’t required to convict corrupt public servants, who can be convicted on the basis of evidence from other witnesses or even that of the circumstantial variety, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, adding that corrupt public servants need to be brought to book to ensure the governance and administration of the country is kept free from corruption and becomes unpolluted.
The remark by a five-judge Constitution bench was made in a judgement laying down that in cases of bribery, where direct evidence by the complainant or the bribe giver is not available to prove the demand of bribe, the public servant can still be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence statement of other witnesses.
Also Read | On Rijiju’s ‘Supreme Court should not take up bail plea’, opposition’s attack: ‘Does he even know…’
The bench of justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna said, “We hope and trust that the complainants as well as the prosecution make sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption.”
Closing doors of escape for corrupt public servants in cases where the complainant had died, or turned hostile or was not in a position to record statement, the 71-page judgment authored by justice BV Nagarathna, said, “The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant in the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial.” It further stated, “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 the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.”
Also Read | Collegium clears five new names for Supreme Court
The Constitution bench was asked to examine the question after a reference made to it in August 2019 where an apparent conflict was noted in three earlier decisions passed by the Supreme Court. Since proof of demand is considered sine qua non (essential) to hold a public servant guilty of receiving bribe and the primary evidence to prove this lies with complainant or bribe giver, the Court had to answer whether the absence of complainant’s evidence would weaken the case against the accused government servant.
Answering this question, the bench unanimously held, “In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.”
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 7 is the offence for against public servant for taking illegal gratification while Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) relates to criminal misconduct on part of public servant for obtaining pecuniary advantage by illegal means or by abusing official position.
In th course of the hearing, the Centre argued that lack of direct evidence or primary evidence would not automatically, result in an acquittal. During the submissions, Additional Soliciitor General Aishwarya Bhati said, “Corruption is making the country hollow. It strikes at the root of national interest and these stringent provisions (under the Prevention of Corruption Act) should be given its full meaning.”
She presented the report of the Committee on the Prevention of Corruption Act submitted by the K. Santanam Committee which stated that corruption has increased to a large extent and people have started losing faith in the integrity of public administration.
