The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that misuse of authority by a public servant was not sufficient to raise presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act as it ordered dropping of proceedings against former Gujarat Minister.
Appellant BJP leader and then Minister Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani was accused of allotting fishing contracts in the reservoirs vested with the State without following the policy of the government.
Allowing his plea against High Court's refusal to quash the criminal proceedings, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot arise on the mere allegation of a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
The bench said unless proof is offered to the satisfaction of the court that there is a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the presumption would not arise.
"If there is a demand and acceptance of bribe, then there is a presumption that it is to dishonestly carry out some activity by a public servant, for which, first, proof will have to be offered of the demand and acceptance.
"It is not otherwise that, if there is a misuse of authority then there is always a presumption of a demand and acceptance of bribe, resulting in a valid allegation of corruption," the bench said in its judgment on February 27, 2025.
The court further said the proof of demand (or an offer) and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a fact in issue in the criminal proceeding and is a sine qua non to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act.
The bench relied upon the five-judge Constitution bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) in this regard.
The appellant contended the grants made on pre-fixed upset price was to benefit the 'Padhar Adivasi' community which was made possible by the policy framed by the fisheries department approved by the Cabinet and the Chief Minister as found in the investigation report itself.
The complainant, on the contrary, asserted that the clear policy of the government mandated tendering process for distribution of State projects could not have been deviated from by the Minister or the department.
After going through 2004 policy, the court found the tendering process is a mandate only in reservoirs outside the tribal areas, with provision for reservations and relaxation in so far as tribals and societies.
"We do not find any enquiry having been carried out as to the location or area of the various reservoirs for which the grant is made. Be that as it may, even if the grants have been made, all in non-tribal areas, even then the ingredients of the offences alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act is absent," the bench said.
The court said the only charge is with respect to misuse of authority which does not come under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and none of the ingredients regarding demand or obtaining or acceptance of bribe or any illegal gratification has come out.
"The accusation was the Minister had sanctioned the grant of fishing rights on an upset price, which is alleged to be misuse of authority especially since the policy can be deviated from, only on orders of the Chief Minister or the Cabinet as per the policy document and the Rules of Business framed," the bench said.
The court felt the discharge application ought to have been allowed as the investigation report spoke only of an allegation of misuse of authority, without any allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe as against the appellant.