TACKLING GRAFT

In a landmark decision, the Court said that direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe is not necessary to prove guilt and a person can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence

- Dr Swati Jindal Garg 

RIGOBERTA Menchu, a Nobel laureate, rightly said: "Without strong watchdog institutions, impunity becomes the very foundation upon which systems of corruptions are built. And if impunity is not demolished, all efforts to bring an end to corruption are in vain."

In a recent development, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that a court can convict a corrupt official under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act for demanding and accepting bribe even when there is no direct evidence against him. The bench, comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna, also said that corrupt officials must be booked and convicted.

Corruption has taken gigantic proportions affecting governance and has a demoralising effect on honest officers, the bench further said. The Court went on to clarify that even if direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act with circumstantial evidence and held that it is permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Sec tion 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. “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 stated.