Evidentiary standard under the Prevention of Corruption Act referred to a larger bench amid conflicting precedents.

The SC noted a conflict between earlier three-judge bench rulings on whether culpability under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be inferred in the absence of the complainant's evidence or other direct primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification. The issue concerned the evidentiary standard for proving offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) when primary testimony is unavailable. Because the competing precedents required clarification by a bench of appropriate strength, the Court referred the question of law to a larger bench for decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of the complainant's evidence or other direct primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, inferential deduction of culpability can be drawn under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The order noted a divergence between earlier three-judge bench decisions on the evidentiary requirement for proving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the complainant's primary evidence is unavailable. In view of the conflict and the need for determination by a bench of appropriate strength, the question framed on the point was referred for consideration by a larger bench.

Conclusion: The question of law was referred to a larger bench for decision.

---