Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set Aside- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 17 March 2023
- Bench
- Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Rajesh Bindal
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (pre-2018 amendment) -- Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i)-(ii), 13(2) and 20
The appeal was allowed; the judgments of the High Court and the Special Court were set aside, and the appellant's conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were set aside (para 20).
Source Supreme Court of India, decided 17 March 2023
Reading is free. Downloading the PDF of a judgment published more than 7 days ago needs a free account. Register or sign in to download
Key holdings
- The Constitution Bench ruling permits proof of demand by circumstantial evidence, but it does not dilute the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt (paras 13-14).
- Where demand is proved circumstantially, every circumstance must be established and consistent only with a demand for gratification (para 14).
- A shadow witness who only heard the accused ask for papers and Rs. 10,000, without knowing its purpose, does not prove a demand for gratification (paras 15-16).
- Every demand for payment of money is not a demand for gratification; it has to be something more than a mere demand for money (para 17).
- The Section 20 presumption arises only after demand and acceptance are proved; without proof of demand, the Section 13(1)(d) offence also fails (paras 11, 19).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification may be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral or documentary evidence; the Section 20 presumption arises only on proof of the facts in issue. The Court added that this does not dilute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55
The Section 20 presumption applies only to Section 7, not Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), and arises only on proof of acceptance, which in turn requires proof of demand.
- P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152
Approved by the Constitution Bench; followed with B. Jayaraj on proof of demand as a sine qua non.
View all precedents (6)
- M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2001) 1 SCC 691
The earlier three-Judge decision said to conflict with B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy, leading to the reference.
- N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Mere recovery cannot prove the charge; voluntary acceptance knowing it to be a bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the Section 20 presumption follows only after demand and acceptance are proved.
- C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779
Mere possession or recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not constitute the offence (as cited in N. Vijayakumar).
