Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.44 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala & Anr vs C.P. Rao on 16 May, 2011
Carrying this 13
enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala v.
C.P. Rao that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to
have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not
prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any
evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the
accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to
be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained."
B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014
"5. ..........It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of
the currency notes from the accused without proof of
demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7,
since demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to
constitute the said offence. The above also will be
conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is
concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for
illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or
abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be
established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal
gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section
20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or
forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of
demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not
follow. Reference may be made to the two decisions of the
three-Judge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.
[(2014) 13 SCC 55: (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] and P.
Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. [(2015) 10 SCC 152 :
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Krishan Chander vs State Of Delhi on 6 January, 2016
In Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi, (2016) 3 SCC
108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle of
law regarding the ingredients of inter-alia Section 7 of the PC Act
that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Paras 35, 36 and 37 of the
judgment read as under:-
C.M.Sharma vs State Of A.P. Th. I.P on 25 November, 2010
By way of illustration reference
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:35:56 :::CIS
14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31442 )
may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of
A.P. and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI." (emphasis supplied)
C.M.Girish Babu vs Cbi, Cochin, High Court Of Kerala on 24 February, 2009
By way of illustration reference
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:35:56 :::CIS
14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:31442 )
may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of
A.P. and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI." (emphasis supplied)
N.Sunkanna vs State Of A.P on 14 October, 2015
In N. Sunkanna vs. State of A.P., (2016) 1 SCC 713 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere possession and
recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of
demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since
demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said
offence. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-