NEERAJ DUTTA versus STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 17-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
997
NEERAJ DUTTA
v.
STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009)
MARCH 17, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) –
Proof of demand of illegal gratification – Prosecution case that a
trap was laid and the appellant-Electricity Inspector came with the
co-accused and demanded the documents and bribe of 
which was paid by the complainant – Special Court holding that
there was sufficient circumstantial evidence on record to prove the
guilt of the appellant, convicted her for the offence punishable u/
ss. 7 and 13(i)(d)(i) and (ii) rw 13(2) – High Court upheld the same
– On appeal, held : Apart from the evidence of PW-5-shadow witness,
there is no other evidence that is pressed into service by the
prosecution for proving the demand by the appellant – Even taking
the statements of PW-5 in the examination-in-chief as correct, it is
impossible to even infer that the demand of Rs.10,000/- was made
by the appellant by way of gratification – Every demand made for
payment of money is not a demand for gratification – It has to be
something more than mere demand for money – On facts, no
circumstances brought on record which would prove the demand
for gratification – Thus, the ingredients of the offence u/s. 7 not
established and consequently, the offence u/s. 13(1)(d) not attracted
– Judgment passed by the courts below set aside.
ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Demand and
acceptance of – Modes of proof – Held: In the absence of direct
evidence, the demand and/or acceptance can always be proved by
other evidence such as circumstantial evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The proof of demand within the meaning of
Section 7 cannot be a simpliciter demand for money but it has to
be a demand of gratification other than legal remuneration. All
that PW-5 says is when the appellant visited the shop of the
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 997
997
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
complainant, she asked the complainant to give papers regarding
the electricity meter and Rs.10,000/- to her by telling him that
she was in a hurry. This is not a case where a specific demand of
gratification for providing electricity meter was made by the
appellant to the complainant in the presence of the shadow
witness. PW-5 has not stated that there was any discussion in his
presence between the appellant and the complainant on the basis
of which an inference could have been drawn that there was a
demand made for gratification by the appellant. The witness had
no knowledge about what transpired between the complainant
and the appellant earlier. PW-5 had admittedly no personal
knowledge about the purpose for which the cash was allegedly
handed over by the complainant to the appellant. [Para 16][1011-
C-F]
1.2. As per the version of the appellant in her statement
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on
17th April 2000, she was working as an LDC in DVB office. On
that day, she was busy with her official duty in a collection drive
organized by the department to collect dues from the consumers.
Her explanation is that the complainant was her neighbour and
he wanted her assistance to deposit electricity charges. She stated
that earlier, she had a transaction of sale and purchase of a car
through the complainant. She has also stated that the complainant
was a history-sheeter and there were three First Information
Reports (FIRs) registered against him. In this context, PW-5
was questioned in the cross-examination. PW-5 did not confirm
the correctness of the suggestion but stated that he was not in a
position to deny the same. In fact, PW-7, the investigation officer,
deposed that cash of Rs.71,900/– was found in the appellant’s
car. This lends support to the defence that there was a recovery
drive conducted by the appellant. Apart from the evidence of
PW-5, there is no other evidence that is pressed into service by
the prosecution for proving the demand by the appellant. Even
taking the statements of PW-5 in the examination-in-chief as
correct, it is impossible to even infer that the demand of
Rs.10,000/- was made by the appellant by way of gratification.
Every demand made for payment of money is not a demand for
gratification. It has to be something more than mere demand for
money. [Para 17][1011-F-H; 1012-A, D-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
999
1.3 In the complaint filed by the deceased complainant on
17th April 2000,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.