SEO

MODULE 2: Corruption and Economic Offences

Dimensions of corruption:

Klitgaard’s Equation: Corruption happens if,

Corrupt Gain > Penalty x Probability of getting caught or prosecuted

▪ Stephan’s Equation:

Degree of Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion – (Transparency + Morality)

Evolution of prevention of corruption act:

 IPC came into force wef 1.1. 1862

 Chapter IX , S 165 to 165, offences by public servant,
 Silent on misconduct or abuse of power
 Special Act ( Prevention of Corruption Act 1947) wef 11.03.1947 came into
existence to make more effective provisions for prevention of bribery and corruption.
 Criminal misconduct was made an offence
 PC Act was expanded in 1988
 Defined Public Servant, various offences
 Criminal misconduct was defined in detail (S 13)
 Repealed IPC Section and PC Act 1947
 PC Act was amended in 2018
 Criminal misconduct was narrowed down
 New term “undue advantage’ defined; gratification not limited to pecuniary benefit
only; prior approval for
 inquiry/investigation in certain cases; santion of prosecution extended to the retired
public servant; time line for trial & sanction of prosecution provided

what has the law addressed as corruption?

Bribery & its abettors

Abuse of official position

Possession of disproportionate assets beyond the known source of income

What is considered as bribe?

The receiver must be a public servant

 He must solicit or receive illegal gratification

 He must have received the same as a motive or reward

 1. Motive is for doing a future act

 2. Reward is for a past act

 It should be other than legal remuneration

 Mere demand of bribe by a public servant is an offence.

 Gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or estimable in money

Abuse of power

Abuse means misuse or using his position for something for which it is not intended.

 The abuse of official position is wider than the offence of bribery.

 The abuse may be by corrupt or illegal means .

 To obtain pecuniary advantage or any valuable thing for himself or for any other person
without any public interest

 All bribery cases squarely fall under “obtaining any pecuniary advantage“ ; hence,
necessarily falls under abuse of

power

 Causing wrongful loss to the Govt to obtain pecuniary advantage for a third party falls
under abuse of power

 Issue of contracts to the bidders at higher rates would also fall under abuse of powers

Prevention of corruption act: statement of object:

The bill is intended to make the existing anti-corruption laws more effective by widening
their coverage and by strengthening the provisions.

 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was amended in 1964 based on the
recommendations of the Santhanam Committee.

 There are provisions in Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code to deal with public servants
and those who abet them by way of criminal misconduct.

 There are also provisions in the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, to enable
attachment of ill-gotten wealth obtained through corrupt means, including from transferees
of such wealth.
 The bill seeks to incorporate all these provisions with modifications so as to make the
provisions more effective in combating corruption among public servants

Statement of object:

The bill, inter alia, envisages widening the scope of the definition of the expression ‘public
servant‘, incorporation

of offences under sections 161 to 165A of the Indian Penal Code, enhancement of penalties
provided for these

offences

 Since the provisions of section 161A are incorporated in the proposed legislation with an
enhanced punishment,

it is not necessary to retain those sections in the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, it is
proposed to delete those

sections with the necessary saving provision.

 P C Act 1947.pdf

 The Criminal Law Ordinance 1944.pdf

 India Penal Code 161- 165.pdf

Salient features of the act:

It incorporates the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1952, and Sec. 161 to

165-A of the Indian Penal Code with certain tweaks in the original provisions.

 It has enlarged the scope of the definition such as ‘Public Duty’ and ‘Public Servant’ under
the definition clause,

Section 2, of the act.

 It has shifted the statutory burden of proof to the accused.

 The provisions of the Act clearly state that the investigation is to be made by an officer, not
below the rank of

Deputy Superintendent of Police.

 The 1988 Act enlarged the scope of the term ‘public servant‘ which now includes
employees of the central
government, union territories, nationalized banks, employees of the University Grants
Commission (UGC), vice-

chancellors, professors, and the like.

 The Act covers corrupt acts such as bribe, misappropriation, obtaining a pecuniary
advantage, possessing assets

disproportionate to income and the like.

AMENDMENTS OF 2018

 Undue Advantage defined S 2(d): “undue advantage” means any gratification whatever,
other than legal

remuneration.

 Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, the word “gratification” is not limited to
pecuniary gratifications or

to gratifications estimable in money;

 Persons liable for offering a bribe to public servants: Previously, the PC Act did not contain
a separate

provision for a person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage, but the
Amendment Act makes giving

an undue advantage by a person to a public servant, a specific offence.

 Offering of bribes by commercial organisations is made punishable

 Redefining criminal misconduct:

 public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—

 (a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use
any property

entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other
person so to do; or

(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.( possessing
disproportionate assets)
Prior approval of the competent authority required for enquiry or inquiry or investigation of
offences

relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of

official functions or duties

 Attachment of property: The Amendment Act has provided for application of the
Prevention of Money

Laundering Act 2002 and Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 for attachment and
administration of

property procured by means of an offence under the PC Act.

 Time frame for trial: Amendment Act now prescribes that the Special Judge shall
endeavour to complete the

trial within 2 (two) years. This period can be extended by 6 (six) months at a time and up to a
maximum of 4

(four) years in aggregate subject to proper reasons for the same being recorded

 Enhancement of Punishment in certain offences

 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (amended 2018).pdf

PUBLIC SERVANT SEC 2 (C )

 “public servant” means—

 (i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government
by fees or

commission for the performance of any public duty;

 (ii) any person in the service or pay of a local authority;

 (iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act, or

an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government

company as defined

in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 ;

 (iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself
or as a member of any
body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;

 (v) any person authorised by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the
administration of

justice, including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner appointed by such court;

(vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for
decision or report by a

court of justice or by a competent public authority;

 (vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare,
publish, maintain or revise an

electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election;

 (viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to
perform any public

duty;

(Sec 2 (b) defines “public duty” which means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the
public or the

community at large has an interest)

 (ix) any person who is the president, secretary or other office-bearer of a registered co-
operative society

engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial
aid from the Central

Government or a State Government

(x) any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or
Board, by whatever name

called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by such Commission or Board for
the conduct of any

examination or making any selection on behalf of such Commission or Board;

 (xi) any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor,
reader, lecturer or any

other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University and any
person whose services have

been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection with holding or
conducting
examinations;

 (xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social,

cultural or other

institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial

assistance from the Central

Government or any State Government, or local or other public authority.

 Explanation 1- Persons falling under any of the above sub-clauses are public servants,
whether appointed by the

Government or not.

 Sec 21 IPC.pdf Section 2 c PC Act.pdf

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TERM “PUBLIC SERVANT”

 The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 did not define the term, public servant explicitly. It
was dependent upon

the definition of the term as is given in the Indian Penal Code.

 The term, public servant was defined for the first time within an anti-corruption legislation
under the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988

 The provisions of Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which defines the
term, public servant,

have been procured from Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code { S 2(28) of BNS} and new
provisions have also

been incorporated to make it more comprehensive and broader.

 By reading the concerned provisions from both the enactments we can find that the
provisions (i), (ii), (iii), of

Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act corresponds to Clause (12) of Section 21 of
the Indian Penal

Code

 Clauses (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relate to
Clause (3), (4), (6), (11)

of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

 The Clauses (vii), (ix), (xi), (xii) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
new provisions.

 Section 2 c PC Act.pdf Sec 21 IPC.pdf

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has also put up at rest the controversies made by
differing

views of different High Courts which had resulted into uncertainty and confusion as to who
is a

public servant

 The Clause (b) has been added in Section 2 which characterizes ‘public duty‘ as a duty in
the discharge

of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.

 In this way the term ‘public duty‘ is in consonance with the term, public servant and the
parameter for

establishing nature of the employment has shifted from pay and remuneration to public
duty which is a

welcome move.

 This definition should be extended to semi-Government authorities, bodies and their

Departments

where the employees are entrusted with public duty.

 The Explanation to the clause (b) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act clarifies
the word

‘State‘ which includes a Corporation established under a Central, Provincial or State Act or
Authority

or a Body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government Company as

defined in

Company Act

WHETHER A MINISTER 0R AN MP/MLA IS A PUBLIC SERVANT ?

 A Minister, Prime Minister and Chief Minister is a public servant in terms of Clause (12) of
Section 21 of the
Indian Penal Code itself which corresponds to subclause (i) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the
Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

 The Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (AIR 1979 SC 598) held that a
Minister is appointed

and dismissed by the Governor and is therefore subordinate to him, that he gets salary for
the public work done

or the public duty performed by him and that the said salary is paid to him out of the
government funds.

 In P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998 Cr. L.J. 2930) a 5-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid
down that a

Member of Parliament holds an office and by virtue of such office he is required or

authorised to perform duties

and such duties are in the nature of public duties.

 An MP would therefore fall within the ambit of section 2.c. viii of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 even

though there is no authority who can grant sanction for his prosecution under section 19 (1)
of the Act.

 Sanction of prosecution is to be obtained from the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or Speaker
of the Lok Sabha, as

the case may be. Section 2 c PC Act.pdf Sanction of Prosecution Sec 19 A.pdf

OTHER LEADING JUDGMENTS ON PUBLIC SERVANT

 In State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Prabhakar Rao & Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 636, the Supreme
Court

held that the definition of Public Servant U/s 21 of IPC is of no relevance under the
Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

 In C.B.I. v. Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3 SCC 788, the managing director and chairman of a
private

banking company were held to be public servants for the purposes of prosecution under the

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

 Held, banking sector, being governed by the Reserve Bank of India and considered as limb
of the State

under Article 12 of the Act and by virtue of Section 46A of Banking Regulation Act, the
petitioner is

deemed to be a 'public servant' for the purpose of provisions under the Prevention of
Corruption Act.

 In Dadaji v. State of Maharashtra, (2016 RCR Criminal 741) the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has
held

that public duty means a duty in the discharge of which the State, public or community at
large has an

interest. This definition should be extended to semi-Government authorities, bodies and

their

Departments where the employees are entrusted with public duty.

OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

 Sec 7. Offence related to public servant being bribed

(Punishment- punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three
years but which

may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine)

▪ Sec 7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or
by

exercise of personal influence

( Punishment - punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three
years but which

may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine)

▪ Sec 8. Offence relating to bribing of a public servant

( Punishment - punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or
with fine or

with both)

▪ Sec 9 & 10. Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation

( Punishment – imprisonment with fine)

Sec 11. Public servant obtaining undue advantage, without consideration from person
concerned in

proceeding or business transacted by such public servant

(punishment; imprisonment 6 months to 5 years with fine)

▪ Sec 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.—

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—

▪ (a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use
any property

entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other
person so to do; or

▪ (b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.

(punishment; imprisonment four to ten years with fine)

▪ Sec 14. Punishment for habitual offender

▪ Sec 15. Punishment for attempt

SEC 7. OFFENCE RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVANT BEING BRIBED

 Section 7: Offence relating to public servant being bribed

 Any public servant who-

 (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with
the intention to perform

or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause

forbearance to perform

such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

 (b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a
reward for the improper

or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by
himself or another

public servant; or

 (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a

public duty or to forbear

performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue

advantage from any person,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years
but which may extend

to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1-- For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting
to obtain an undue

advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by
public servant is not or has

not been improper.

 Explanation 2-- For the purpose of this section--

 (i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain” shall cover cases where a
person being a public

servant, obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for
another person, by

abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another
public servant; or by any

other corrupt or illegal means;

 (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or
attempts to obtain the

undue advantage directly or through a third party.

 Undue Advantage defined: “undue advantage” means any gratification whatever, other
than legal

remuneration.
 Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, the word “gratification” is not limited to
pecuniary gratifications or

to gratifications estimable in money;

 Objectives, procedures and penal provisions under the following Acts:

 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
 Benami Transaction Prohibition Amendment Act, 2016
 Essential Commodities Act, 1955
 Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential
Commodities Act, 1980

CASE LAWS:

1. Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1998 SC 2595

FACTS: Kalicharan Mahapatra, an IPS officer, retired as a SIP in Orissa. A raid on May
12, 1990, uncovered significant cash and jewelry from his residence. He was charged
under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The
investigation continued post-retirement, and a chargesheet was filed in 1992.

ISSUE: Can a retired public servant be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, without obtaining prior sanction under Section 19 of the Act?

SUPREME COURT:

Sanction for Prosecution: Sanction under Section 19 is only required if the accused
is still a public servant when the court takes cognizance. The Constitution Bench in K.
Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) upheld the view that no sanction is required to
prosecute a public servant after retirement

If the individual is no longer in service, no sanction is necessary.

Accountability Persists: Public servants cannot escape liability for crimes committed
during their tenure, even after retirement.

Distinction from Section 197 of CrPC: Unlike Section 197, which requires sanction for
acts done in official capacity, the Prevention of Corruption Act focuses on personal
corruption, not official acts.

2. Shivendra Kumar v Stata of Maharastra, AIR 2000, SC 3079

The appeal concerns the conviction of Dr. Singhal, a lecturer in Forensic Medicine at Nagpur
Medical College, who was found guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe. The appellant
was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with
Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was sentenced to six months of
rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for each count, with a fine.

Facts:

1. Kanayyalal, the father of Gopichand (PW1), died from burn injuries on 11th
September 1985. Dr. Singhal conducted the autopsy and discovered contusions
(injury marks) on Kanayyalal's body.

2. Dr. Mukhi (PW4), a close friend of Gopichand, was present during the autopsy. Dr.
Singhal suggested that if these injuries were mentioned in the report, it would turn
the case into a medico-legal one.

3. Dr. Mukhi intervened to protect Gopichand from potential legal trouble and
suggested that Dr. Singhal omit mentioning the injuries. Dr. Singhal then demanded a
bribe of Rs. 5,000 to omit the injuries, which was later reduced to Rs. 1,500.

4. Gopichand reported the demand to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was set
up. On 14th September 1985, Gopichand met Dr. Singhal, handed over the bribe
money, and the currency notes were recovered from Dr. Singhal’s pocket after being
chemically treated.

5. Dr. Singhal’s defense was that the money was planted in his pocket by Gopichand and
that he had unknowingly come into contact with the Phenolphthalein powder during
a handshake.

Issue:

The primary issue was whether the sanction for prosecution against Dr. Singhal was validly
issued. Dr. Singhal contended that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority,
rendering the entire prosecution flawed.

Judgment:

Sanction for Prosecution: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the sanction. The
Secretary of the Medical Education Department had issued the sanction on behalf of
the State Government. The appellant’s contention that the Secretary was not the
competent authority was rejected. The Court observed that unless it could be shown
that a different officer had the competence, the sanction issued by the Secretary was
valid.

Competence of the Authority: Section 6 mandates that no court shall take

cognizance of offenses punishable under certain sections (including Section 161 of
IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act) unless there is prior sanction
 from the appropriate authority. This ensures that public servants cannot be harassed
by baseless criminal complaints.

The Court noted that the Medical Education Department, which was the controlling
department for lecturers in the Medical College, was competent to deal with the
sanction of prosecution. The argument that the Law and Justice Department should
have issued the sanction was also dismissed.

Conclusion: The Court found no merit in the appellant’s contentions and dismissed
the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

3. Madukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi v State of Maharastra, AIR 2001, SC 147

Facts: The appellant, a Sub Engineer with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, was
involved in a corruption case in 1980. A businessman, PW-1, secured a contract for electrical
decorations but required additional power supply. The appellant, in his official capacity,
demanded a bribe of Rs.550 for sanctioning the additional load. After bargaining, the
amount was reduced to Rs.300. PW-1 reported this to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, who
arranged a trap. The appellant was caught red-handed accepting the bribe in PW-1's office.
The appellant claimed the money was a gift, but the prosecution proved that it was a bribe.
The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947, and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a Rs.5000 fine. The
High Court reduced the imprisonment to one day but increased the fine to Rs.3000. The
appellant appealed, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case.

Issue: The primary issue was whether the appellant's conviction under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and the sentence imposed by the High Court should be upheld, particularly
considering the legal presumption regarding bribery and the reduction in the sentence by
the High Court.

Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, confirming that the amount paid to the appellant was indeed
gratification (a bribe). It rejected the appellant's defense that the money was a gift and
reaffirmed the legal presumption under the Act that any gratification accepted by a public
servant was presumed to be for performing an official act.

Regarding the sentence, the Court ruled that the High Court had no authority to reduce the
sentence to below the minimum prescribed by law. The Prevention of Corruption Act
mandates a minimum sentence of one year, with a rare exception for special reasons. The
Court found that the general delay in the case was not a special reason to reduce the
sentence. As a result, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s sentence of one year of
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000, emphasizing the importance of deterrent
punishment in corruption cases.

4. Neeraj Datta v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724

Facts of the Case:

 The appellant, Neeraj Dutta, was accused of demanding a bribe from the
complainant in exchange for facilitating the installation of an electricity meter. The
complainant had alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 10,000 as a bribe for this
service.

 The complainant died before being able to testify, so the prosecution relied on the
testimony of other witnesses, particularly PW-5 (Mr. S.K. Awasthi), who was present
during the alleged second demand for the bribe on 17th April 2000.

 The defense argued that the payment of Rs. 10,000 was not a bribe, but part of a
legitimate transaction related to the complainant's car dealings. Furthermore,
evidence regarding the installation of the meter and the complainant’s prior
complaint were found to be inconsistent and lacking clear proof.

Issue:

 Whether the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, Neeraj
Dutta, can be established beyond a reasonable doubt, given the absence of direct
evidence, such as the complainant's testimony.

 Whether circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to prove the elements of the
offense under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

Ruling of the Court:

 The Constitution Bench had previously ruled that even in the absence of direct
evidence, such as oral or documentary evidence, the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification could be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

 The Court emphasized that a demand for gratification under Section 7 must be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes establishing the demand for
something more than just money — it must be for a motive or reward related to an
official act.

 The Court found that the evidence provided, particularly the testimony of PW-5,
failed to establish a clear demand for a bribe. It was noted that the demand was
vague, and PW-5 did not have personal knowledge of the transaction's context.
  Moreover, inconsistencies in the complainant’s complaints about the electricity
meter raised further doubts about the prosecution’s case.

Final Decision:

 The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Special Court was set aside. The
appellant's conviction and sentence were overturned, and the bail bonds were
canceled.

In the judgment, the court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC
Act), particularly Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 20, as follows:

1. Section 7 of the PC Act:

o The court emphasized that Section 7 addresses the demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification (bribe) by a public servant in return for performing or
forbearing to perform an official act.

o The judgment clarified that demand for gratification and its acceptance must
be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the offense. The court
acknowledged that the proof of demand could be established by
circumstantial evidence, not just direct evidence (oral or documentary). The
Constitution Bench ruling cited by the court indicated that in the absence of
direct evidence, the demand and acceptance of the bribe could still be
inferred from other evidence, including circumstantial facts.

2. Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act:

o The court pointed out that Section 13(1)(d) involves the offense of a public
servant corruptly accepting a bribe for doing or forbearing to do an official
act. The charge against the appellant was primarily under this provision,
relating to the alleged acceptance of a bribe.

o Section 13(2) was mentioned in relation to the punishment for the offense
described in Section 13(1)(d), highlighting that if the demand and acceptance
of gratification were proved, the appellant would be liable under this section.

3. Section 20 of the PC Act:

o The court also discussed the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act,
which allows a presumption that the illegal gratification was taken for a
motive or reward (as per Section 7) if the demand and acceptance of the
bribe are proven.
 o However, the court stated that this presumption under Section 20 could only
be invoked after the prosecution proves the basic facts, such as the demand
and acceptance of the illegal gratification.

o The presumption under Section 20 was explained as rebuttable, meaning that

even if it was presumed, the accused could challenge the presumption and
prove otherwise.

In this case, the court found that there was insufficient direct evidence to prove that the
appellant demanded and accepted a bribe, and therefore, the presumption under Section 20
could not be invoked. The court concluded that the demand for gratification was not
established beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

5. Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1064