Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for Proving Corruption Charges Under the Prevention of Corruption Act

In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2022 5 S.C.R. 104, the Hon’ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reaffirmed that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is essential to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court clarified that such proof need not be based solely on direct evidence like the complainant’s testimony or documentary records, but may also be established through circumstantial evidence or other witnesses’ testimony. The Court further ruled that even if the complainant is unavailable, deceased, or turns hostile, the trial should not be abated, nor is acquittal automatic. Additionally, the Court highlighted that under Section 20 of the Act, once the fact of acceptance or agreement to accept gratification is proved, a presumption arises that the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward, whether through direct or circumstantial evidence. The Court concluded that there was no conflict with previous judgments on this issue.