IMPORTANT POINT
Divergence in treatment of evidentiary requirement for proving the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

ORDER :

1. The present reference, concerning the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arises out of the order dated 28.02.2019, passed by a two-judge bench of this Court, wherein they expressed certain doubts as to the validity of the position of law as expounded by this Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 152. In that case, the Court held that, in the absence of primary evidence of the complainant due to his death, inferential deductions in order to sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was impermissible in law.

2. However, the Court, vide order dated 28.02.2019, highlighted a number of judgments, such as Kishan Chand Mangal vs. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 466, Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 390 and M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 691, wherein this Court, despite the absence of primary evidence of the complainant, sustained the conviction of the accused by relying on other evidence, and raising a presumption under the statute.

3. Noting the divergence in the treatment of the evidentiary requirement for proving the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court referred the following question of a law for determination by a larger bench:

“The question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.”

4. Heard learned senior counsels for the parties at length.

5. We note that two three-judge benches of this Court, in the cases of B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 152, are in conflict with an earlier three-judge bench decision of this Court in M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 691, regarding the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the primary evidence of the complainant is unavailable.

6. We therefore consider it appropriate to refer the question of law framed to be decided by a bench of appropriate strength. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.