Cbi vs Kulbhushan Jindal on 18 August, 2025
58. Also, in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra) a
detailed analysis on direct and circumstantial evidence has been given
which is as under :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1183 (3.14 seconds)Documents citing
Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022
Cbi vs Kulbhushan Jindal on 12 August, 2025
58. Also, in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra) a
detailed analysis on direct and circumstantial evidence has been given
which is as under :
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Tobius Xaxa on 16 February, 2026
In view of what is laid down by the Constitution Bench, in a
given case, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by
a public servant can be proved by circumstantial evidence in the
absence of direct oral or documentary evidence. While
answering the referred question, the Constitution Bench has
observed that it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of
culpability and/or guilt of the public servant for the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the PC Act. The conclusion is that in absence of direct
evidence, the demand and/or acceptance can always be proved
by other evidence such as circumstantial evidence.
Cbi vs Vinay Kumar on 18 November, 2024
In view of the law laid down in the judgment(s) B.
Jayaraj vs. State of AP, 2014, Cr. L J 2433, SeJappa vs. State, AIR
2016, SC 2045 and Mukhtiar Singh (Since deceased) Through his
LR vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the Constitutional Bench
judgment in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(supra), the basic ingredient of demand of bribe is sine qua non of
Section 7 of the PC Act (as amended in the year 2018) and Section
7 of PC Act, 1988 (prior to amendment of 2018), which has not
been proved vide the above discussion and taking into account the
CNR No. DLCT11-000346-2021 Page 102 of 103
CBI Vs. Vinay Kumar
overall evidence with regard to evidentiary facts, as discussed
above, consequently the prosecution has failed to make out a case
u/S. 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (prior to amendment of 2018) and also
u/S. 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
Smt N Usha vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2026
21. The learned Special Prosecutor relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj
Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) stated supra
especially in paragraph Nos.89 and 90, reads as under:
B V Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2023
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta's case
(supra) after the law laid down by the Constitution Bench and
the said matter was disposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court which
36
was reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 280 wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph 15 by referring the case
of N.Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
(2021) 3 SCC 687 held that "absence of proof of demand for
illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of
currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence and
the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn
only after the demand for and acceptance of illegal
gratification is proved. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph 18 held as under:-
H Suresh Babu vs The State By Police Inspector on 30 September, 2024
40. The learned counsel for the appellant also relies
upon the judgment of Apex Court in Crl.A.No.1669/2009
between Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt, of NCT of Delhi
wherein, the Apex Court has categorically held that, "in
view of rival submissions, the point emerges or proof of
demand and acceptance illegal gratification by a public
servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sina qua
non in order to establish the guilt of the accused a public
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2024
11. According to Mr. P.C. Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant- Hawaldar Nursing Assistant Jitendra Kumar Verma is currently serving the Indian Army. However, in the entire case diary, there is no material indicating the fact that applicant ever demanded any money from any of the candidates. He, therefore, contends that since the acid test of "Demand and Acceptance" as explained by the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724 (paragraph 68), which is required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is not satisfied against the applicant upto this stage, as such, prima-facie no offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against applicant.
Kailash Chand Saini Son Of Shri Shiv ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 December, 2025
73. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State
(supra) along with in other cases such as B. Jayaraj (supra),
has elucidated that a "demand" must be a specific and proactive
solicitation by the public servant in connection with the discharge
of official duties. The mere voluntary offer of money by the
complainant, particularly when unaccompanied by any active
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 08:09:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 10:56:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:50891] (58 of 63) [CRLAS-1498/2023]
solicitation or coercion by the accused, does not satisfy the
requirement of demand under the statute. Further, mere recovery
of money from the floor, without proof of demand and acceptance,
does not constitute an offence and the presumption under Section
20 of the Act of 1988 is not attracted in such cases.
Haribhau Vishvnathji Sonkusare vs State Of Mah.Thr.P.S.O.Bhandara on 16 April, 2024
34. As far as applicability of presumption is concerned, the
Honourable Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State
(Govt.of NCT of Delhi) supra held that presumption of fact with
regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal
gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference
only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant
oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof.
On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion
to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of
demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a
presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the
absence of rebuttal presumption stands.