In Brief
A public servant (LDC at Delhi Vidyut Board) was convicted of demanding and accepting illegal gratification (bribe of Rs. 10,000) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant died before trial. The conviction was challenged on the ground that without the complainant's direct evidence, demand cannot be proved. The Supreme Court identified a conflict between its prior judgments: one line permitting inference of demand from circumstantial evidence and recovery of tainted money; another (P. Satyanarayana Murthy) holding such inference impermissible. The Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice for appropriate orders, expressing reservations about the Satyanarayana reasoning, pending larger Bench consideration of the central legal question.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.