26 May 2025 Legal Updates

PC ACT | MERE RECOVERY OF TAINTED MONEY NOT ENOUGH FOR CONVICTION WITHOUT PROOF OF BRIBE DEMAND: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C B Nagaraj

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 19, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

FACTS

Complainant E R Krishnamurthy was appointed as Primary School Teacher and needed a Validity Certificate under Category-II A. The file was assigned to respondent C B Nagaraj for spot inspection and report. On February 7, 2007, complainant alleged that Nagaraj demanded ₹1,500 as bribe at 12:30 PM. Complainant returned at 5:30 PM with the money, which was allegedly accepted by Nagaraj. A trap was conducted by Lokayuktha Police using phenolphthalein-smeared currency notes.

Legal Proceedings

• Trial Court: Nagaraj was held guilty and sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment + ₹2,000 fine
• High Court of Karnataka: Set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent

Supreme Court

Legal Issues

• Whether Section 20 presumption applies when demand is not proved?
• Credibility of Evidence: Reliability of complainant's testimony?
• Chain of Events: Whether demand-acceptance-recovery chain was complete?

Court’s Analysis

1. Weak Evidence of Demand:

• Only complainant's testimony supported the demand allegation. PW2's testimony was contradictory and incoherent. No other witness testified to hearing the demand.

2. Complainant's Credibility Issues:

• Complainant initially denied knowledge of spot inspection report dated February 5, 2007. When confronted with document, he immediately accepted and identified signatures. Such conduct rendered testimony unreliable.

Legal Principles Established

• Section 20 Presumption - Prevention of Corruption Act
• Presumption under Section 20 only applies when acceptance of gratification is proved. If demand itself is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, Section 20 presumption cannot operate

Complete Chain Requirement

• For conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, entire chain must be proved: (1) Demand of bribe (2) Acceptance of bribe (3) Recovery of bribe
• Critical Point: Even if acceptance and recovery are proved, absence of proven demand breaks the chain

Credibility Assessment

• Complainant's testimony must be reliable and consistent. However contradictory statements, initial denial followed by acceptance when confronted with evidence and lack of corroborative evidence raise questions on validity of the assessment.

Supreme Court Decision:

The Appeal was dismissed, High Court's acquittal upheld. The demand was not proved beyond reasonable doubt

JJ ACT OVERRIDES NIA ACT, JUVENILE BOOKED UNDER UAPA TO BE TRIED BY CHILDREN'S COURT: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Reference vs. Memo No.454/2024 Bhopal

(b) Court:

• High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur

(c) Bench:

• Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Dwivedi

(d) Date of Decision:

• 19th May, 2025

Key Issue

Jurisdictional Conflict: Which court should try a juvenile offender charged with serious offences under multiple acts including NIA Act and UAPA - the Special Court under NIA Act or the Children's Court?

Facts in Brief

A case was registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as Special Case No.4/2017. One accused was found to be a juvenile (under 18 years) at the time of the offence. The Juvenile Justice Board ordered that the juvenile be tried as an adult and transferred the case to Children's Court. However, the case involved NIA investigation and scheduled offences under NIA Act. This created a jurisdictional conflict between two courts

Legal Provisions in Conflict

1. NIA Act, 2008

• Section 13: Contains non-obstante clause giving Special Courts exclusive jurisdiction over scheduled offences. The clause overrides only the Code of Criminal Procedure, not other laws.

2. Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

• Section 1(4): Contains broader non-obstante clause overriding "any other law for the time being in force" Section 18(3): Allows transfer of juvenile cases to Children's Court for trial as adult

Court's Analysis

• Non-obstante Clause Interpretation: When two statutes have conflicting non-obstante clauses, the broader and later enactment prevails
• Beneficial Legislation: Juvenile Justice Act is protective and beneficial legislation requiring liberal interpretation
• Temporal Precedence: Later law (JJ Act 2015) prevails over earlier law (NIA Act 2008)

KEY DISTINCTIONS

• NIA Act's non-obstante clause: Limited to overriding Code of Criminal Procedure only
• JJ Act's non-obstante clause: Comprehensive, overriding "any other law for the time being in force"
• Scope of JJ Act 2015: More elaborate and protective than previous versions

JUDGMENT/RATIO DECIDEND

"When an FIR is registered under a Scheduled Act prescribed under the NIA Act and a juvenile has been directed to be tried as an adult by the Children's Court, then the jurisdiction to try the case would vest in Children's Court and not in the Special Judge under the NIA Act."