Prevention & Corruption Act 1988

Case laws

1. State of M.P. v Ram Singh (2000) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Court emphasized that the Act must be interpreted broadly to effectively curb corruption. The term “public servant” should receive a wide interpretation, and minor technical defects in prosecution should not defeat justice if corruption is otherwise established. The judgment reflects a purposive interpretation to strengthen anti-corruption enforcement.

2. M. Narasinga Rao v State of A.P. (2001) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Once acceptance of illegal gratification is proved, presumption under Section 20 arises that the gratification was for corrupt purposes. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption on a standard of preponderance of probability (not beyond reasonable doubt). This case clarifies evidentiary burden dynamics in corruption trials.

3. T. Shankar Prasad v State of A.P. (2004) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Mere recovery of money from the accused is insufficient to convict. Prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. This case reinforces that recovery alone cannot establish guilt.

4. B. Jayaraj v State of A.P. (2014) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non (essential condition) for conviction under Sections 7 and 13. Without proof of demand, even if recovery is proved, conviction cannot be sustained. This case is a leading authority on “proof of demand”.

5. P. Satyanarayana Murthy v State of A.P. (2015) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Reaffirmed that proof of demand is indispensable. Mere recovery or possession of tainted money is not enough; failure to prove demand is fatal to the prosecution case.

6. Krishan Chander v State of Delhi (2016) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances of demand and acceptance, cannot sustain conviction. The prosecution must establish a complete chain showing demand and voluntary acceptance.

7. State of Punjab v Madan Mohan Lal Verma (2013) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only after proof of demand and acceptance. Recovery alone does not trigger presumption. This clarifies the stage at which presumption operates.

8. Vinod Kumar v State of Punjab (2015) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Even if the complainant turns hostile, conviction can still be based on other reliable evidence proving demand and acceptance. The court can rely on circumstantial and corroborative evidence.

9. Parkash Singh Badal v State of Punjab (2007) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Prior sanction is mandatory for prosecuting a serving public servant. However, if the accused is no longer a public servant at the time of cognizance, sanction may not be required.

10.State of Karnataka v Selvi J. Jayalalitha (2017) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: In disproportionate assets cases, once prosecution establishes that assets are disproportionate to known sources of income, burden shifts to accused to satisfactorily explain the sources. Failure leads to conviction.

11. K. Veeraswami v Union of India (1991) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Judges are “public servants” under the Act. However, prosecution of a sitting judge requires prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India, ensuring judicial independence is protected.

12. State of Maharashtra v Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede (2009) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Trap evidence must be carefully scrutinized. Prosecution must establish demand, acceptance, and recovery through a consistent and reliable chain of evidence.

13. Hazari Lal v State (Delhi Administration) (1980) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Once acceptance of money is proved, presumption arises that it was illegal gratification unless the accused offers a satisfactory explanation.

14. R. Venkatkrishnan v CBI (2009) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Abuse of official position to obtain pecuniary advantage constitutes criminal misconduct even without direct proof of bribe. The scope of corruption includes indirect benefits.

15. N. Vijayakumar v State of Tamil Nadu (2021) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Reiterated that proof of demand is essential before invoking presumption under Section 20. Foundational facts must be proved first.

16. Neeraj Dutta v State (NCT of Delhi) (2022) (Constitution Bench) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Demand of bribe can be proved through circumstantial evidence; direct evidence is not mandatory. Once foundational facts are proved, presumption under Section 20 can be applied.

17. CBI v Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Valid sanction must show application of mind by the competent authority. Mechanical or routine sanction is invalid and can vitiate prosecution.

18. State of A.P. v P. Venkateshwarlu (2003) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: “Illegal gratification” includes any benefit other than legal remuneration, regardless of amount. Even small sums fall within the mischief of the Act.

19. A. Subair v State of Kerala (2009) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. Prosecution must establish demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.

20. Ramesh Gelli v CBI (2016) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Officials of private banks performing public duties can fall within the definition of “public servant” under the Act.

21. State through CBI v Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava (2017) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Defect in sanction is curable unless it results in failure of justice. Courts will not quash proceedings on mere technical defects.

22. Chittaranjan Das v State of Odisha (2011) – Supreme Court of India 

Held: Reliability of independent witnesses in trap cases is crucial. Material contradictions and inconsistencies can weaken prosecution and lead to acquittal.