In a significant ruling authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, the Supreme Court reiterated stringent criteria for prosecuting public servants accused of bribery. Referring to the Constitution Bench precedent in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) 2022 (SC) 1029, the court emphasized that merely accepting illegal gratification does not constitute an offense under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i), and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It highlighted the necessity for the prosecution to establish both the offer of a bribe by the giver and the demand by the public servant.
The bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, acquitted a public servant of bribery charges due to procedural lapses by the trap-laying officer. The court underscored that before initiating a trap to catch a public servant red-handed, it is imperative for senior officers to verify the demand for a bribe. This includes scrutinizing telephonic communications between the accused and the prosecution, ensuring clarity on who initiated the bribe demand. The court's directives underscored the importance of meticulous investigation and adherence to legal standards in such cases.
The ruling highlighted flaws in the prosecution's case, notably the failure to conclusively prove the demand for bribery. The investigating officer's oversight in verifying the alleged bribe demand and managing witness involvement, including a shadow witness, proved pivotal in the court's decision. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role of thorough investigative procedures and unbiased witness management to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings.
Justice Sandeep Mehta's judgment referenced the precedent set in Neeraj Dutta v. State, reinforcing the stringent burden of proof in corruption cases. Upholding the principle that the mere acceptance of illegal gratification is insufficient without establishing both the offer and demand elements, the court reaffirmed the high standards required for conviction under anti-corruption laws.
The court's decision carries significant implications for future anti-corruption efforts, emphasizing the need for robust investigative practices and adherence to legal protocols. It underscores the judiciary's role in upholding integrity and transparency in governance, setting a precedent for rigorous scrutiny in bribery prosecutions under Indian law.
