Author: Mitali Upadhyay, Satpura Law College
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, settled a long-standing judicial conflict: Can the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be proved through circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct testimony by the complainant?
The Court ruled that:
Demand and acceptance are indispensable (sine qua non) for conviction.
Direct testimony is not mandatory; circumstantial evidence can suffice.
Recovery alone is insufficient unless supported by other corroborative evidence.
This ruling strengthens anti-corruption prosecutions, prevents misuse of technical loopholes, and provides clarity to trial courts grappling with contradictory precedents.
Use of Legal Jargon
The judgment rests on well-established doctrinal principles and Latin maxims:
1. Sine qua non – Demand and acceptance form the indispensable ingredients for bribery offences.
2. Res ipsa loquitur – The very circumstances of trap recovery and chemical evidence may “speak for themselves.”
3. Lex specialis derogat legi generali – The PCA overrides general evidentiary rules; its purpose-driven interpretation is paramount.
4. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat – The Act must be construed to preserve its utility, not render it ineffective.
5. Mens rea and actus reus – A conviction requires proof of guilty intent along with the overt act of acceptance.
6. Audi alteram partem – Safeguards remain; no conviction lies solely on suspicion or recovery.
By applying these, the Court balanced state’s duty to punish corruption with the individual’s right to fair trial.
The Proof
The case arose from the alleged demand of ₹10,000 by a lineman of the Delhi Vidyut Board for installing a meter. A trap was laid, tainted notes were recovered, but before trial could begin, the complainant died.
Trial Court – Convicted the accused relying on circumstantial evidence.
High Court – Affirmed conviction.
Supreme Court (Division Bench) – Faced conflicting precedents.
Constitution Bench – Held that circumstantial evidence may prove demand and acceptance.
This doctrinal clarification ensures that absence or hostility of complainants will not paralyse anti-corruption enforcement.
Abstract
This article critically examines the Constitution Bench’s ruling in Neeraj Dutta, analysing how the Court:
Clarified that demand and acceptance remain indispensable.
Allowed circumstantial proof as valid evidence.
Harmonised conflicting cases like Narsinga Rao, B. Jayaraj, and Satyanarayana Murthy.
Strengthened practical enforceability of the PCA in corruption prosecutions.
Brought Indian law in line with global anti-bribery standards.
The judgment is a milestone in corruption jurisprudence, aligning doctrinal rigour with pragmatic justice.
Case Laws
1. M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691
Held that demand may be proved by inference from circumstances.
2. B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55
Ruled that mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand is insufficient.
3. P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Dist. Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152
Reiterated Jayaraj, acquitting accused where demand was not proved directly.
4. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731
Reconciled inconsistencies: circumstantial evidence, if compelling, is valid to establish demand.
Conclusion
The Neeraj Dutta ruling is a watershed moment in Indian anti-corruption law. It ensures:
Corrupt officials cannot evade justice due to procedural lapses.
Innocent officers remain protected as recovery alone is insufficient.
A coherent interpretative framework is provided, resolving judicial confusion.
India moves closer to international standards of anti-bribery enforcement.
In short, the decision safeguards both accountability of public officials and the principle of fair trial, striking a vital balance.
FAQS
Q1. What did the Court decide in Neeraj Dutta?
That demand and acceptance are indispensable, but they can be proved through circumstantial evidence.
Q2. Is recovery of tainted notes enough for conviction?
No. Recovery must be linked with proof of demand and voluntary acceptance.
Q3. Why is this ruling significant?
It prevents collapse of prosecutions where complainants turn hostile or die before trial.
Q4. How does this align with global standards?
India now follows the UK and US approach, where circumstantial evidence is admissible in bribery cases.
Q5. Does this compromise fair trial rights?
No. Safeguards remain; courts demand cogent and corroborative evidence.
Citations
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731.
M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691.
B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55.
P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Dist. Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended 2018).
UK Bribery Act, 2010; US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
