JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

597

Message
show

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

This case deals with the question of whether a demand for illegal gratification can be inferred under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the absence of direct evidence.

Petitioners Arguments
Mere proof of receipt of money by the accused in the absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Since the complainant passed away, primary evidence of demand is not available and therefore the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh , a case with very similar facts, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of direct evidence of demand of money, guilt of accused under Sections 7 and 13 cannot be established.
Responders Arguments
The decision in P. Satyanarayana Murthy was per incuriam as the court had ignored a long line of Supreme Court decisions including the decisions in Kishan Chand Mangal v. State of Rajasthan, Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration) and M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P . In all these cases the complainant had either died or had turned hostile but the court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence, holding that direct evidence of demand of illegal gratification is not necessary. Since acceptance of illegal gratification has been successfully established, the court must draw the presumption of the accused's guilt as per Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Last Listed On
2022-12-15
Start Date
2009-04-15
End Date
2022-12-15
Card Stage Date
2022-12-15
Review Petition No
Crl.A. No. 1669/2009
Case Status
Archive
Bench Status
Constituted
Subject Matter
Constitution
Disposal Time
13 years, 8 months, 1 day

5 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
false

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

Judgement pronounced

This is a case pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act where the appellant, a public servant, was accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The appellant had allegedly demanded Rs. 10,000 from the complainant for installing an electricity meter. After the complainant registered an FIR, the appellant was caught receiving Rs. 10,000 from the complainant in a raid. Though the complainant had passed away before the commencement of the trial, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act based on the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction.

Can the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act be proved through circumstantial evidence, in the absence of any direct evidence of demand for illegal gratification?

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Taking note of P. Satyanarayana’s contradiction with former Supreme Court decisions, the court framed the question of law and referred it to a larger bench.

P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 152

Union of India v. Duryodhan Sahoo

Date Of Institution Start
2019-07-18
Case No
SLP(Crl) No. 006206 - / 2019

D. Chellaiah v. The State by Inspector of Police

Date Of Institution Start
2019-07-31
Case No
SLP(Crl) No. 27232/2019

Vinita v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date Of Institution Start
2019-12-11
Case No
SLP(Crl) No. 011339 - / 2019

Jossey Joseph v. The State of Kerala

Date Of Institution Start
2020-12-15
Case No
SLP(Crl) No. 006497 - / 2020

PC Act - Mere Acceptance Of Amount, Without Proof Of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence Under Section 7: Supreme Court

PC Act - Mere Acceptance Of Amount, Without Proof Of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence Under Section 7: Supreme Court
Source Of Info
LiveLaw
Date Of Fr
2022-02-21

Demand: Prerequisite for an Offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act

Demand: Prerequisite for an Offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act
Source Of Info
The Criminal Law Blog: National Law University, Jodhpur
Date Of Fr
2022-01-20