In Brief
A public servant was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe for installing an electricity meter. The complainant died before trial. The central legal issue was whether demand for illegal gratification can be proved by circumstantial evidence (recovery of money, chemical tests, witness testimony) without direct evidence from the complainant. The Court found conflicting precedent: one line of judgments allowed inferential proof; another disallowed it. The Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice, noting the issue required larger-bench consideration.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.