Supreme Court Refers Corruption Law Interpretation to Larger Bench: Neeraj Dutta vs. State of Delhi

The Supreme Court of India, in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), examined the crucial question of whether a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can be sustained without direct evidence of the demand for a bribe. The Court ultimately referred this issue to a larger bench due to conflicting judicial precedents.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an alleged bribery incident involving Neeraj Dutta, who was serving as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Delhi Vidyut Board. On April 17, 2000, the complainant, Ravijit Singh Sethi, received a call from the appellant regarding the installation of an electricity meter at his shop. When they met, the appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000, which was later reduced to Rs. 10,000 after negotiations.

Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) and lodged a formal complaint. The ACB organized a trap operation, in which the complainant handed over the bribe money to the appellant. The appellant then passed the money to Yogesh Kumar, a driver in the department. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal, the raiding team arrested both individuals and recovered the bribe amount.

Trial Court and High Court Proceedings

The trial court convicted Neeraj Dutta under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She was sentenced to:

• Two years’ imprisonment under Section 7.
• Three years’ imprisonment under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2).
• A fine was also imposed.

Yogesh Kumar was convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for abetting the crime. However, the Delhi High Court acquitted him, citing lack of evidence of conspiracy or abetment, while upholding the conviction of Neeraj Dutta.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

The appellant challenged her conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing:

• There was no direct evidence of her demanding the bribe.
• The complainant died before trial and could not testify.
• The shadow witness (PW-5) was not an eyewitness to the demand.
• Without direct proof of demand, the conviction could not stand.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Requirement of Direct Evidence for Demand

The appellant relied on the precedent set in P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2015), where the Supreme Court held that:

“Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”

Since the complainant was not available to testify, the appellant argued that the demand element was not proved.

2. Can Demand Be Inferred From Circumstances?

The prosecution countered that:

• The demand for a bribe could be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
• The complainant had reported the demand before the ACB, leading to a trap operation.
• Phenolphthalein tests confirmed that the appellant had accepted the bribe.

In previous cases such as Hazari Lal vs. State (1980) and M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. (2001), the Supreme Court upheld convictions based on circumstantial evidence, even when the complainant was unavailable.

3. Conflicting Judicial Views

The Court noted that different benches had taken contradictory positions:

• In P. Satyanarayana Murthy, the Court ruled that the absence of direct evidence of demand was fatal to the prosecution.
• In M. Narsinga Rao, the Court held that demand could be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

To resolve this inconsistency, the Supreme Court decided to refer the issue to a larger bench for authoritative interpretation.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court did not rule on the appellant’s conviction but referred the following question to a larger bench:

“Whether, in the absence of evidence of the complainant or direct evidence of demand for illegal gratification, it is permissible to infer guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act based on other prosecution evidence?”

Key Takeaways

• Judicial inconsistency on demand proof: The case highlights conflicting views on whether demand for a bribe must be directly proven.
• Prevention of Corruption Act interpretations: The ruling will clarify the legal standard for proving corruption cases.
• Importance of direct evidence: If demand is required to be directly proven, many corruption convictions could be affected.
• Role of circumstantial evidence: The larger bench’s decision will determine if convictions can be based on inferences from surrounding facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Neeraj Dutta vs. State of Delhi is a crucial development in anti-corruption law. The referral to a larger bench ensures a definitive ruling on whether a corruption conviction requires direct evidence of a bribe demand or if it can be inferred from circumstances. This judgment will have significant implications for future bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Petitioner Name: Neeraj Dutta.
Respondent Name: State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 28-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of NCT Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category