Presumption Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Overview

Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) establishes a legal presumption regarding the acceptance of illegal gratification by public servants. This presumption is crucial in cases involving corruption, as it shifts the burden of proof to the accused once certain foundational facts are established.

Key Provisions of Section 20

1. Legal Presumption:

2. If it is proved that an accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification (other than legal remuneration), it shall be presumed that such acceptance was as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, unless the contrary is proved State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nellore VS Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah - Andhra PradeshState, Rep. By Inspector of Police VS Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar - Andhra Pradesh.

3. Conditions for Presumption:

4. The presumption arises only after the prosecution proves the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification State of Gujarat VS Dahyabhai Kalidas Parmar A. H. C. B. No. 1398 - GujaratState, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nellore VS Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah - Andhra Pradesh.

5. The presumption is rebuttable; the accused can challenge it by providing evidence to the contrary ANIL BHASKAR VS STATE OF M. P. (SPE) LOKAYUKT - Madhya PradeshState, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nellore VS Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah - Andhra Pradesh.

6. Rebuttal of Presumption:

7. The accused must provide a reasonable explanation or evidence to rebut the presumption. Merely raising a probability is insufficient; the rebuttal must be based on a preponderance of probabilities Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme CourtState of A. P. VS C. Uma Maheshwara Rao - Supreme Court.

Judicial Interpretations

• Foundational Facts: The prosecution must establish foundational facts such as demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe for the presumption to apply State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nellore VS Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah - Andhra PradeshMaruti Hanumanthappa Madivalar VS State - Karnataka.
• Inference of Demand: Demand for illegal gratification can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the case, not necessarily requiring explicit verbal demands K. L. Bakolia VS State Thr C. B. I. - DelhiRajesh Gupta VS State Through Central Bureau of Investigation - Delhi.
• Burden of Proof: Once the foundational facts are established, the burden shifts to the accused to disprove the presumption State of A. P. VS C. Uma Maheshwara Rao - Supreme CourtSATVIR SINGH VS STATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI. - Supreme Court.

Case Law Examples

• In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court clarified that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for establishing guilt under the PC Act, and the presumption under Section 20 is applicable only when these elements are proven State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nellore VS Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah - Andhra Pradesh.
• In a case involving a Village Accountant, the court upheld the conviction based on the established demand and acceptance of bribe, reinforcing the application of Section 20 Maruti Hanumanthappa Madivalar VS State - Karnataka.

Conclusion

The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act plays a pivotal role in corruption cases by facilitating the prosecution''s burden of proof once foundational facts are established. The accused has the opportunity to rebut this presumption, but must do so with credible evidence. Legal practitioners should ensure that they effectively establish the foundational facts to invoke this presumption and prepare robust rebuttals if representing the accused.

Recommendations

• For prosecution: Focus on gathering clear evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribes to effectively invoke the presumption under Section 20.
• For defense: Prepare to provide substantial evidence or credible explanations to rebut the presumption, emphasizing any gaps in the prosecution''s case.

References: State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nellore VS Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah - Andhra PradeshState, Rep. By Inspector of Police VS Nimmakayala Vijaya @ Vijaya Kumar - Andhra PradeshState of Gujarat VS Dahyabhai Kalidas Parmar A. H. C. B. No. 1398 - GujaratANIL BHASKAR VS STATE OF M. P. (SPE) LOKAYUKT - Madhya PradeshMaruti Hanumanthappa Madivalar VS State - KarnatakaDhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme CourtState of A. P. VS C. Uma Maheshwara Rao - Supreme CourtSATVIR SINGH VS STATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI. - Supreme CourtK. L. Bakolia VS State Thr C. B. I. - DelhiRajesh Gupta VS State Through Central Bureau of Investigation - Delhi.].