Thread by @barandbench

#SupremeCourt to deliver verdict on case dealing with the question of if, in the absence of direct or primary evidence of demand of bribe, inferential deduction of guilt of a public servant can be drawn based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

#ConstitutionBench

Court assembles.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: A) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: B) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This can be proved either by direct evidence

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: ..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

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: ..Direct oral or documentary evidence. In order to prove the demand and acceptance the following aspects have to be borne in mind.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: i. If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without any demand by public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and recieves the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per S 7.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: ii. If public servant makes a demand and giver accepts it, it is a case of obtainment. In both cases, the offer and demand have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: Mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under S.7 or 13(1)

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: A presumption is subject to rebuttal by the accused.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: We find that there is no conflict in the three-judge bench decisions of this court with regard to the nature of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under S 7 or 13 of the Act.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: When the direct evidence of complainant is unavailable, owing to death or any other reason- the position of law is also discussed and the observations above will apply.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: We hold that there is no conflict in the judgements. Accordingly, the question is answered:

In the absence of evidence of complainant (direct or primary) it is permissible to draw an inferencial deduction of culpability

#SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: Individual cases may be considered before the appropriate bench after orders of CJI.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: Before we conclude, we hope and trust that the complainants as well as prosecution make senior efforts that the corrupt police servants are brought to book and convicted so that administration and governance..

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Court: ..becomes unpolluted and free from corruption.

Court quotes Swatantra Singh v State of Haryana.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench

Dictation ends.

Justice Nagarathna to Justice Nazeer: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to write.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #ConstitutionBench