List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Karnataka v. Chandrashala has held that the amount of bribe is not substantial to make presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).

What was the Background of The State of Karnataka v. Chandrashala Case?

• The case involves a government employee named Chandrasha (defendant) who worked as a First Division Assistant in the Sub Treasury Office in Afzalpur, Karnataka.
• The incident began on 29^th July 2009, when Subhash Chandra S. Alur, a Second Division Assistant at Shri Mahanteshwar High School, submitted a bill for encashment of surrender leave salary for himself and three non-teaching staff members to the Sub Treasury Office.
• According to the complaint, when defendant initially reviewed the bill, he instructed Subhashchandra to take it back, claiming it could not be approved.
• When Subhashchandra requested the bill be passed, the defendant allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000 (Rs. 500 from each person) to influence his higher officials and get the bill processed.
• Unwilling to pay the bribe, Subhashchandra approached the Lokayukta (anti-corruption) office on 30^th July 2009. The Lokayukta officials provided him with a tape recorder to document any conversations about the bribe.
• On 5^th August 2009, a trap was set. Subhashchandra went to the Sub Treasury Office with witnesses, and the conversation about the bribe was recorded. When the defendant demanded and accepted the Rs. 2,000 bribes, Lokayukta police personnel intervened and caught him in the act.
• The currency notes were marked with special powder, and the defendant was found with the tainted money in his pocket. A case was registered under the PCA specifically Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2).
• The case went through multiple legal stages - first being convicted by the trial court, then acquitted by the Karnataka High Court, and finally reaching the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court observed:
  • Legal Standards for Corruption Cases:
    • The Court emphasized that to prove corruption, two fundamental facts must be established:
    • Demand
    • Acceptance of illegal gratification
    • Mere possession of money is not sufficient to constitute a corruption offence.
    • The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe.
  • Regarding the Specific Case:
    • The Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
    • The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of corruption.
    • The cheque for the bill was prepared but not issued, which contradicted the respondent's claim that no work was pending.
  • Procedural Compliance:
    • The prosecution had obtained proper sanction from the competent authority (Director of Treasury).
    • The sanction order was based on a thorough review of documents and prima facie evidence.
  • Interpretation of Legal Provisions:
    • The Court clarified that the value of gratification should be considered in proportion to the act sought.
    • The amount of bribe does not determine corruption - the overall circumstances matter
    • The presumption under Section 20 of the PCA is similar to presumptions in other legal contexts, placing the burden of proof on the accused.
  • Critique of High Court's Earlier Judgment:
    • The Supreme Court found the High Court's acquittal order "illegal, erroneous and contrary to the materials on record"
• The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's acquittal and restoring the trial court's original conviction and sentence against the defendant.

Relevant Provisions of PCA:

• Section 7: Offence relating to public servant being bribed as:
  • The provision outlines three primary types of corrupt actions by a public servant:
    • Obtaining an undue advantage with the intention to:
      • Perform a public duty improperly or dishonestly
      • Cause a public duty to be performed improperly
      • Forbear from performing a public duty
    • Accepting an undue advantage as a reward for:
      • Improperly performing a public duty
      • Forbearing from performing a public duty
    • Performing or inducing another public servant to perform a public duty improperly:
      • In anticipation of an undue advantage
      • As a consequence of accepting an undue advantage
  • Punishment includes imprisonment of minimum of 3 years, maximum of 7 years along with fine.
  • The section also has some important explanations:
    • Explanation 1:
    • The mere act of obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain an undue advantage is an offence.
    • This is true even if the public duty was ultimately performed correctly.
    • Explanation 2:
      • "Obtains", "accepts", or "attempts to obtain" includes scenarios where a public servant:
      • Obtains advantage for themselves or another person
      • Abuses their position
      • Uses personal influence over another public servant
      • Uses any corrupt or illegal means
      • The method of obtaining the advantage (direct or through a third party) is irrelevant.
• Section 13 (1) (d): Criminal misconduct by a public servant
  • Subsection (1) of this section states that a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if:
    • By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
    • By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
    • While holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
  • Section 13 (2) states that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than four years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 20: Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage
  • In any trial concerning offences punishable under section 7 or section 11, if it is established that a public servant has accepted, obtained, or attempted to obtain any undue advantage, a legal presumption arises.
  • This presumption states that the public servant is deemed to have accepted or attempted to obtain that undue advantage unless proven otherwise.
  • This provision aims to deter corrupt practices among public officials by placing the burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate their innocence.

Punishment for Bribery Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

• Section 173 of the act states the provisions for the punishment for bribery:
  • Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.
  • It is further accompanied with an explanation as “Treating” means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the conviction and held that disclosure statement cannot be relied on in this case.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr v. State of Uttarakhand.

What was the Background of Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr v. State of Uttarakhand Case?

• A First Information Report was lodged at a police station by the brother of the deceased.
• The following evidences were collected from the place where the dead body of the deceased was discovered (verandah of Mohan Singh’s shop):
  • An inquest Report was prepared.
  • Blood-stained earth and plain earth/floor from the spot and a seizure memo was prepared.
  • A black polythene bag containing goat meat was also discovered.
  • Autopsy showed that the estimated time of death was a day before the autopsy.
• The police arrested the appellants on suspicion and as per the case of the police on the pointing out of the appellants the place where the deceased was allegedly assaulted was discovered.
• Also, there were witnesses who had seen the deceased in the company of the accused during the daytime also at night on the pathway near the place where the dead body of the deceased was recovered.
• The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charges framed were under Section 302 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Trial Court convicted the appellants for both the above offences.
• The High Court reduced the charge from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I of IPC and thereby reduced the sentence.
• Aggrieved by the above the appellants were before the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court in this case discussed the following circumstances:
  • Last seen Together Theory:
    • This is a very important circumstance in case the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidences.
    • However, if the time gap between when the accused was last seen together with the deceased and the recovery of the dead body is substantial intervention by a third party cannot be ruled out.
    • Thus, where time gap is substantial adverse inference cannot be drawn against the accused merely because he failed to prove as to when he parted with the company of the accused.
  • The circumstance that a black bag containing meat was found in the vicinity of the crime scene and the appellant had also bought meat was negated by the Court. The Court observed that meat could have been bought by anyone as there were several shops of meat in the area.
  • Disclosure Statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA):
    • The Court held that reliance cannot be placed on this.
    • The Court observed that the alleged discovery was not made in pursuant to that statement.
    • The discovery statement was recorded at the police station whereas the recovery was made from the place pointed out by the accused enroute to the police station.
    • Further, the disclosure statement did not lead to recovery and the alleged recovery made was made even before the statement was made.
• Thus, the Court overturned the decision of Lower Courts and held that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of incriminating circumstances.

What is Discovery Statement?

About:

• Disclosure Statement is provided for under Section 27 of IEA.
• This section is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – a fact is actually discovered as a consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object.

Section 27 of IEA:

• This is in the form of proviso to other provisions.
• The fact should be discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused of any offence.
• The Accused should be in the custody of police.
• So much information as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.
• This is irrespective of whether the statement amounts to confession or not.
• In the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (1947), Sir John Beaumont held that Section 27 is proviso to only Section 26 of IEA.
• However, in the recent times in the case of Jafarudheen v. State of Kerela (2022), the Supreme Court has held that Section 27 is an exception to preceding Sections particularly, Section 25 and Section 26.

Requisite Essentials to Invoke Section 27 of IEA:

• This was laid down in the case of Preumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (2023) where the Court held the following:
  • Firstly, there should be discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in consequence of information received from the accused person.
  • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police.
  • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information the accused should be in the custody of the police.
  • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible.
  • This words fact discovered would include the following:
    • The “place” from where the object is produced.
    • The knowledge of the accused as to this.

Which Provision of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Provide for Disclosure Statement?

• It can be found as proviso to Section 23 (2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
• Section 23 (2) provides:
  • No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him.
  • Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.

What are Important Case Laws on Section 27 of IEA?

• Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976):
  • It has been held that the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence.
  • The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition.
  • The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody.
  • Lastly, it is only so much information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible.
• Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (2024):
  • The requisites for invoking Section 27 are as follows:
    • Firstly, there should be discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in consequence of information received from the accused person.
    • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police.
    • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information the accused should be in the custody of the police.
    • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible.
• State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005):
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates.