Demand Of Illegal Gratification Also To Be Proved While Constituting Offence Of Corrupt Practices #indianlaws

The legal position with regard to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is settled that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under the provision, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence.

In the present appeal, Accused had challenged his conviction for commission of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act).

It was observed that the legal position with regard to Section 7 of the Act is settled that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under the provision, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence.

It was accordingly held that the above position would also 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.

Based on the above position, the Supreme Court accordingly set aside the conviction of Appellant.

[N. Sunkanna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh]

(SC, 14.10.2015)

Criminal Appeal No. 1355 of 2015