In Brief
The Supreme Court was asked to confirm a corruption conviction of a public servant despite the complainant's death, which left no direct evidence of a bribe demand. The appellant relied on a recent judgment requiring direct proof of demand. However, the Court noted a conflict: older precedents allow conviction based on circumstantial evidence, witness testimony, money recovery with chemical markers, and statutory presumptions—without the complainant's direct evidence. Rather than decide the conflict, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to reconcile whether corruption convictions require direct demand-evidence or can rest on inferences and circumstantial proof.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.